530176501
GUIDELINES
FOR STRTE AND AREAWIDE
WATER QUALITY mANAGEmENT
PROGRAm DEVELOPfflENT
33
\
\
UJ
C3
U.S. ENYIRONmENTRLPROTEQION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2O46O
NOVEmBER1976
-------
GUIDELINES
for
STATE AND AREAWIDE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
NOVEMBER 1976
-------
FOREWORD
Final regulations dealing with the State continuing planning
process policies and procedures (40 CFR 130) and the preparation of
State and designated areawide water quality management plans (40 CFR
131) were published in the Federal Register on November 28, 1975.
Regulations for obtaining grants for planning (40 CFR Part 35 Sub-
part A) were also published on November 28, 1975 and October 4, 1976.
These regulations require that the States assume responsibility
for preparation of water quality management plans for the entire
State—directly in nondesignated areas and indirectly in designated
areas through coordination with areawide agencies. In addition, the
regulations set forth the required elements which State and designated
areawide agencies are to include in their water quality management
programs.
These guidelines, which are interim final, are intended to be used
by State and designated areawide agencies in developing implementable
water quality management programs consistent with the requirements set
forth in the regulations. While it is not possible for EPA to provide
answers to all the water quality problems that should be resolved,
these guidelines describe the overall factors which should be taken
into account and provide a framework for agencies to use in developing
their water quality management programs.
In February 1976, Draft Guidelines for State and Areawide Water
Quality Management Program Development were issued. The draft guidelines
were based extensively on the Guidelines for Areawide Waste Treatment
Management Planning (August 1975) which had received widespread distri-
bution and review. In addition, a request for comments was made in the
draft guidelines of which approximately 6,000 copies have been distributed.
These interim final guidelines reflect the majority of comments which have
been received on the draft guidelines.
Comments on these interim final guidelines are still requested and
should be addressed to the Water Planning Division (WH-554), Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. 20460. A formal notice requesting
comments will be placed in the Federal Register in the near future. These
guidelines will be issued as final in the spring of 1977. Based on the
comments received on the draft guidelines, we expect that the final
guidelines will not differ substantially from these interim final guide-
lines. As a result, State and areawide agencies and other interested
individuals and groups should rely on these^guidelines in the preparation
of their water quality management plans,
'/
JK.J
Andrew W. Breidenbach
Assistant Administrator
for Water and Hazardous Materials
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose
1.2 Applicability
1.3 Timing
1.4 Objectives
1.5 Output Requirements
1.6 Overview
2. Continuing Planning Process Development and Approval
2.1 Purpose
2.2 Major Stages
2.3 Detailed Guidance on Required Process Elements
3. State Water Quality Management Plan Development
3.1 Scope and Purpose
3.2 Program Objectives
3.3 Program Content
3.4 Planning Criteria
3.5 Planning Sequence
3.6 Technical Planning
3.7 Management Planning
3.8 Combined Plan Evaluation and Selection
3.9 Plan Outputs
3.10 Submission Procedures
4. Public Participation
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Public Participation Program Development
4.3 A Model Program for Public Involvement
4.4 Institutional Alternatives for Representation of
the General Public
4.5 Program Evaluation
4.6 Advisory Committee
5. Water Quality Standards Revision
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Water Uses
5.3 Water Quality Criteria
5.4 Antidegredation
5.5 Mixing Zones
5.6 Thermal Water Quality Standards
5.7 Water Quality Related Effluent Limitations Under
Section 302 of the Act
5.8 Stream Flows
5.9 Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material
5.10 Groundwater
5.11 State Water Quality Standards Review
and Revision Procedures
-------
6. Land Use Considerations
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Develop Area Subplans through Land Use Analysis
7. Nonpoint Source Management Considerations
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Statutory Requirements and EPA Policy
7.3 Planning Methods for Selection of Best Management Practices
8. Point Source Considerations
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Planning Approach for Point Sources
8.3 Municipal Wastewater Facilities
8.4 Other Point Sources
8.5 Combined Sewer Discharges
8.6 Industrial Wastewater
8.7 Development of Alternative Subplans
9. Management Responsibilities and Institutional Arrangements
9.1 Introduction
9.2 General Management Responsibilities
9.3 Regulatory Program
9.4 Waste Treatment Program
9.5 Basic Issues in Management Agency Designation
10. Financial Arrangements
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Requirements of the Act
10.3 Development of Financial Plans
10.4 Budget Preparation and Supporting Documentation
11. Cost Assessment Considerations
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Basic Concepts in Estimating Costs
11.3 Specific Cost Questions
11.4 Generalized Cost Estimation
12. Techniques for Coordination
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Coordination Techniques
13. Environmental, Social, and Economic Impact Evaluation
13.1 Purpose
13.2 Environmental, Social, and Economic Impact
Evaluation Process
13.3 Environmental Effects of Selected Plan
14. Comparison of Alternatives and Selection of Plan
14.1 Purpose
14.2 The Plan Selection Process
Appendices
Guidelines Supplements:
No. 1. Best Management Practices for Nonpoint Sources
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of these guidelines is to assist the States in setting
up a management program and institutional arrangements to integrate
water quality and other resource management decisions. The central
purpose of this management program is the development and implementation
of State Water Quality Management Plans so that the longer range goals
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 can be
met. To achieve these goals, it will be necessary to develop a water
quality management process at the State and local level that assures
continuous planning for and implementation of pollution control measures.
These guidelines present a suggested framework for developing water
quality management plans. The management plans should be directed to
meet two principal mandates of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972: (1) the determination of effluent limitations
needed to meet applicable water quality standards including the requirement
to at least maintain existing water quality (Section 303); and (2)
development of State and areawide management programs to implement abate-
ment measures for all pollutant sources (Section 208).
1.2 Applicability
These guidelines are directed toward State agencies responsible for
developing a continuing planning process and State or areawide agencies*
responsible for developing State Water Quality Management Plans. Since
the States may delegate their responsibilities to local, regional, sub-
state, interstate, and federal agencies to develop and implement part of
their water programs, these guidelines also apply to these other governmental
entities.
1.3 Ti mi ng
All States have developed a continuing planning process consistent
with Section 303(e) of the Act. As part of the process, the States sub-
mitted Phase I Water Quality Management Plans by July 1, 1975 (or have
been given an additional extension of up to one year by the EPA Regional
Administrator to submit such plans). Phase I plans are directed toward
setting out effluent limitations needed by point sources to meet existing
State water quality standards.
*Agencies tnat naveTeen designated and have received planning grants
prior to July 1, 1975, should continue to follow the Guidelines for
Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning, August 1975, and their
approved project control plans.
1-1
-------
These guidelines pertain to the second phase of implementation of
the effluent limitations and water quality standards requirements of the
Act. In Phase II, States must consider revisions to water quality
standards to achieve the national water quality goal specified in Sec-
tion 101(a)(2) of the Act. Plans to meet these goals must be developed
and should consider all available means to meet water quality standards
including effluent limitations for point sources and management of
nonpoint sources.
While Phase II planning is a logical outgrowth of existing State
Water Quality Management Plans, the long-term goals to be achieved
through Phase II plans and the complexity of resolving pollution problems
from both point and nonpoint sources may require a State to amend its
existing management program to ensure proper coordination among the
various components of its water program. Decisions regarding organizational
responsibility for completing Phase II Plans should be contained in the
State/EPA Agreement (§130.11) including the proposed designation of
areawide planning agencies to undertake certain elements of Phase II
Plans. An even greater need may exist to consider how the State's
management program for water quality can be complemented by and support
other resource management programs in the State. In addition to organiza-
tional and program management revisions to the State's continuing planning
process, the State Water Quality Management Plans themselves may require
substantial changes to meet the longer term goals of the Act and to
develop abatement programs for all pollutant sources.
The timetable of some of the more important dates in Phase II is as
follows:
- November 28, 1975
- January 27, 1976
- April 26, 1976
- April 26, 1976
Promulgation of 40 CFR Parts
130, 131
Identification of areas
eligible for designation
under Section 208(a)(2)-(4)
Continuing planning process
revisions submitted to Regional
Administrator (by this date
Governors should have indicated
final determination of areas to
be designated under Section
208(a)(2)-(4))
Complete documentation of
areawide planning area designa-
tions to be submitted to
Regional Administrator
1-2
-------
- July 1, 1976
- November 1, 1978
- November 1, 1978
1.4 Objectives
Phase I Water Quality Management
Plans due where extensions have
been granted
State WQM Plans due for final
submission (including portions
of State WQM Plan delegated
to areawide or other planning
agencies)
Governors designate management
agencies to implement the plans
The overall objective of the Act is to "restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters"
(Section 101(a)). To achieve this objective, "it is the national goal
that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides
for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and
provides for recreation inand on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983"
(Section 101(a)(2)). To enable meeting the Act's objectives, "it is the
national policy that areawide waste treatment management planning processes
be developed and implemented to assure adequate control of sources of
pollutants in each State" (Section 101(a)(5)).
The objective of the State's continuing planning process is to
establish a management program and arrive at implementation decisions
contained in State Water Quality Management Plans and other plans prepared
pursuant to the Act to meet the 1983 water quality goal, wherever
attainable.
1.5 Output Requirements
The required outputs of the State continuing planning process are
summarized in 40 CFR §130.10(a)-(c). Guidance on how to develop a con-
tinuing planning process to meet these requirements is presented in
Chapter 2.
The required outputs of State Water Quality Management Plans are
stated in Part 131.11(a)-(p). An interpretation of specific outputs
that might be needed to meet these requirements is found in Chapter 3.
The States and other agencies carrying out planning responsibilities
pursuant to Parts 130 and 131 are encouraged to use whatever planning
procedures best suit their needs. The planning procedures discussed in
Chapters 3 through 14 restate the requirements of Parts 130 and 131 and
provide some possible approaches for developing State Water Quality
Management Plans.
1-3
-------
1.6 Overview of the Continuing Planning Process and State Water Quality
Management PI an Devel opment
The following is a summary (with simplified examples) of how the
State might develop its continuing planning process and Water Quality
Management Program:
A- Continuing PIanning Process
Developing a continuing planning process entails a series of
steps in which information is gathered on existing water quality
programs and decisions are made regarding how to adapt existing
programs to the longer term objectives of the Act. These steps
might be conducted as follows:
1. Process Design
The first step is the determination of the agency to be
responsible for developing the continuing planning process.
Once this agency is chosen by the Governor, it should develop an
overall design of a process to meet the requirements of 40 CFR
Part 130. This involves definition of how the State's existing
water program will be modified to meet Phase II requirements.
The initial process design will be further refined as each
component of the process (described below) is developed in
greater detail.
Example: The Governor has designated the State water quality
agency to be responsible for the State's continuing planning
process. The State water quality agency has begun to array a
description of the existing water program, its elements, and
their relationships against a listing of changes needed to meet
the revised requirements for a continuing planning process. The
State agency has separated its process design into the following
functional headings: inputs to the process (including existing
programs related to water quality, public participation, and
intergovernmental input); development of a State Strategy to
meet Phase II requirements; development of a State/EPA Agreement
(including areawide planning area designation and planning delega-
tions); preparation of water quality management plans; and revision
of standards. The State agency has assigned personnel to further
develop each of these components of the process.
1-4
I
-------
2. Define Inputs to the Process
The next step in developing the continuing planning process
is to define the relationship among existing water program
activities and between water programs and other environmental
and resource management programs. At this step, the mechanisms
by which local government and the general public will participate
in formulating and carrying out the State's water program should
also be defined.
Example: The State has first classified its water program
into the following categories: (1) program management, (2) stand-
ards setting, (3) plan development - analytic phase (this refers
to water quality analyses and setting of effluent limits to meet
standards), and (4) plan implementation mechanisms (these would
include Section 402 permits, detailed facility planning and
construction grants, and regulatory programs and implementing
agencies required by Section 208). The interrelation of these
aspects of the State's water program has been defined. The
State Water Quality Management Plan provides the basic framework
for setting water quality goals and making decisions which are
implemented through the permit program, and provides design
parameters for further facility planning and construction grants.
For each of the above water program categories, the State
agency has identified the programs that should be coordinated
with particular activities. For example, major environmental
and resource management programs such as the air and solid waste
programs, Coastal Zone Management Program, HUD 701 Program, and
Federal land management activities should be coordinated with
the water quality program at the stage of program design.
In terms of standards setting, there may be special relation-
ships with other programs that involve designation of land and
water for particular uses, e.g., the Coastal Zone Management
Program, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Federal land management
activities, etc. Plan development and implementation should be
coordinated with corresponding phases of other environmental
and resource management programs.
In order to seek involvement of the public as a whole in its
water program, the State has developed a public participation
program which consists of seminars and meetings on the State's
overall management program and more extensive interaction with
the public in each area in which water quality management plans
are developed.
1-5
-------
Finally, the State has developed a Policy Advisory
Committee with representation of local elected officials. This
Board oversees the State's management program. Similar local
advisory groups have been set up for each planning area within
the State.
3. State Strategy
The State Strategy should indicate the State's general
approach to solving water quality problems and resource needs
to carry out the approach.
Example: The State has indicated two general water quality
problem situations: (1) complex pollution problems in urban
areas involving many pollution parameters and many categories
of sources and (2) specific problems involving a lesser number
of pollution parameters and readily identifiable categories of
pollution sources. The State has indicated that the complex
problems require integrated planning for all.pollution sources.
Because of the important role of local government in resolving
complex pollution problems, the State intends to designate these
areas as areawide planning areas under Section 208(a)(2)-(4)
of the Act. The State will conduct planning and implementation
activities in other areas of the State. The resource needs for
planning in these areas are also indicated.
4. Preparation of State/EPA Agreement
This stage of the process involves determining specific
planning areas and tasks, agencies responsible for the tasks,
including designation of areawide planning areas and agencies,
and a timetable for planning.
Example: The State has already designated three urban areas
for areawide planning. However, it was necessary in the State/
EPA Agreement to spell out a more precise division of responsi-
bilities for monitoring, wasteload allocation development and
review by the State, coordination with further facility planning,
and many other planning relationships. The State proposes to
designate two more areas for areawide planning and has indicated in
the State/EPA Agreement the planning tasks that would be carried
out by the State and designated agencies in such areas. The State
has also indicated the planning tasks to be carried out by the
State water quality agency with the cooperation of other State and
Federal agencies.
1-6
-------
5. Revision of Standards
The State should Indicate where present stream use classifi-
cations may require revision to protect existing instream water
quality and where it is proposed that currently designated uses be
upgraded to meet longer term water quality goals. In each case,
appropriate criteria should be developed to be included in standards
revisions, and the proposed revisions should be evaluated through the
process of developing State Water Quality Management Plans to
implement the standards.
Example: The State has proposed to include toxics and phos-
phorus under its standards for waters supporting warm water fisheries
and to increase the stringency of the standard for total dissolved
solids in waters classified as cold water fisheries to provide
greater protection of trout during spawning. In addition, the State
has chosen a design condition for wet weather flows and will initiate
a monitoring program to determine whether standards are being vio-
lated under wet weather flows. Furthermore, the State has proposed
that high quality waters in certain parts of the State be maintained
at existing water quality levels and has proposed standards reflec-
tive of these levels. To meet longer term water quality objectives,
the State has proposed for certain areas of the State an upgrading
of designated uses from waters that provide maintenance of certain
fisheries to waters that support propagation of this fishery, as
well as body contact recreation.
6. Preparation of State Water Quality Management Programs
Responsibilities for preparing State Water Quality Management
Plans should be indicated in the State/EPA Agreement. After
portions of the State Water Quality Management Plan are completed,
implementing agencies should be designated to carry out the
plan.
Example: Certain portions of the State Water Quality
Management Plan have been completed by existing designated
areawide planning agencies. The State has designated implementing
agencies pursuant to Section 208(a)(2) to carry out these plan
elements.
7. Planning Process Review and Revision
States are required to review their continuing planning process
annually and make revisions if necessary.
1-7
-------
Example: The State has reviewed its existing planning
process description and revised the process description in
accordance with the changes needed to meet Phase II requirements.
The State has held public hearings on the revised process
description.
B. State Water Quality Management Program Development
This guideline suggests a sequence of steps which may be followed
to develop the plan elements required in Part 131 regulations. The
following is a simplified version of these steps accompanied by
some examples of how the steps might apply to typical pollution
problems in urbanized portions of a State:
1. Identify Problems In Meeting 1983 Goals of the Act
The pollution problems should be identified in terms of
their relative impact on water quality. Similarly, existing
institutional problems impeding solution of water quality
problems should be identified.
Example: To meet the 1983 goals of water suitable for
fishing and swimming may require high levels of abatement for
municipal and industrial point sources as well as nonpoint
sources. Municipal and industrial point sources may present
the worst problem under low flow stream conditions. It may be
necessary to provide higher than national base level treatment
for these sources in order to meet water quality standards. In
the process of upgrading treatment for existing municipal
sewage treatment plants and constructing new plants, the location
of discharge points is an important variable affecting water
quality. Treatment plant collection systems also influence
where development will occur, which affects nonpoint source
runoff. Finally, the design of treatment systems will need to
include options for utilizing or disposing of the residual by-
product of the treatment process.
Even after the point source problem has been solved, it is
likely that rainfall-related sources of pollution such as urban
runoff may cause severe stress on aquatic life due to the heavy
metals and toxic substances washed into the stream.
1-8
-------
In terms of institutional problems, the fragmented and
small treatment works authorities in the area would have to
join together to upgrade treatment levels to meet the 1983
goals. In addition, a management agency or agencies may need
to be designated to establish a nonpoint source and residual
waste management program, including local adoption of ordinances
to require "best management practices" for various nonpoint
source pollution generating activities.
2. Identify Constraints and Priorities
Both technical and management constraints on meeting 1983
water quality goals should be identified. Priorities for
solving water quality problems should be established.
Example: From a technical standpoint, there may be reaches
of streams in the area that cannot meet the 1983 goal. The
goal may not be attainable, if a technological solution, for
example, dredging sludge deposits from a river, would cause as
many long term water quality problems as allowing the deposits
to be naturally flushed out of the river over time. The development
of State Water Quality Management Plans should provide information
to help the State determine its policy on revision of water
quality standards. A management constraint may be a lack of
financial capacity to deal with a long standing problem such as
drainage from abandoned mines. Priorities should focus on
problems that can be most effectively solved within existing
technological and economic capabilities. For example, renovating
urban stormwater systems may be a low priority due to the high
capital costs. On the other hand, establishing a treatment
works program may be a very high priority. The State Water
Quality Management Plan should specify a number of interim
outputs such as service areas and treatment levels to provide
an areawide perspective in further facilities planning.
3. Identify Possible Solutions to Problems
All reasonable regulatory and management control methods
to reduce pollution to an acceptable level should be identified.
1-9
-------
Example: Based on the State's existing and proposed water
quality standards, a determination should be made of the levels
of pollutant loading to streams that would not violate water
quality standards. To meet the pollutant loading constraints
for industrial and municipal sources, it may be necessary to
consider larger regional treatment plants or pretreatment of
industrial wastes prior to discharge to a municipal facility.
However, the technical solution of a large regional treatment
plant must also be feasible from an institutional standpoint.
This would require preliminary analysis of management agency(s)
and institutional arrangements for implementing a particular
technical solution. Similarly, in the case of nonpoint sources,
the overall feasibility of managing a particular problem should
be investigated before the details of possible management
practices are developed. For example, if improved street
sweeping is thought to be an option for mitigating impact of
urban stormwater, the practicality of changing parking schedules
should be assessed from the outset. The regulatory measures
for establishing "best management practices" for other nonpoint
sources should also be identified. The authority for regulating
certain activities (agricultural practices or mining) may not
exist at the local level, and would therefore not be feasible
unless enabling legislation were passed.
4. Develop Alternative Plans to Meet Statutory Requirements
Alternative technical abatement methods for municipal and
industrial wastes, stormwater, nonpoint sources and residual
waste, for both new and existing sources should be combined
into areawide plans. Comparable alternatives for the implemen-
tation of the technical options through establishing waste
management programs and regulatory programs should be identified.
Example: The technical alternatives for municipal and
industrial wastes might include options for regionalization of
treatment for municipal and industrial wastes, separate systems,
or upgrading existing municipal systems. Waste treatment capa-
cities of these alternatives should correspond to the projected
land development pattern in the area. The residual waste disposal
options would vary depending on the choice of treatment systems.
Alternative management programs for construction, operation, and
maintenance of the treatment works would have to be developed and
include consideration of the financial arrangements for the local
share of construction, the financing of operations and maintenance,
1-10
-------
and cost recovery and user charges. These assessments need
only be as specific as the degree of detail undertaken in the
State Water Quality Management Plan. The design parameters for
facility planning developed in the State Water Quality Management
Plan should be followed in detailed facility planning prior to
award of construction grants.
Technical alternatives for managing nonpoint sources might
include a series of alternative designs for attenuating the
runoff from new urbanized areas, as well as alternative manage-
ment practices for existing nonpoint sources in categories such
as agriculture or mining. The management programs for implementing
the design criteria for new stormwater and drainage systems would
require proper enabling legislation, an agency capable of supervis-
ing the construction of new drainage systems, and adequate incentives
such as tax advantages for adopting the management practices.
5. Analyze alternative plans
The alternatives should be evaluated according to the criteria
of minimizing overall costs, maintaining environmental, social,
and economic values, and assuring adequate management authority,
financial capacity, and implementation feasibility in meeting water
quality and carrying out the requirements of Sections 303(e),
208(b)(2) and (c)(2) of the Act.
Example: To meet water quality goals, the least cost strategy
for abating municipal sources may involve a large regional treatment
plant. This option would allow establishing a regional approach to
sludge utilization through land application. Thus, this option
would be environmentally and economically desirable. However, the
option would involve constructing sewer interceptors through un-
developed land, which, unless land use controls were strictly
applied, could induce further development. This option would
involve the greatest institutional change, since it would require
creating authority for regional financing of treatment.
For existing nonpoint sources such as urban stormwater,
street sweeping might be less costly than attempting to treat
stormwater. However, altering parking regulations to allow
better sanitation would be disruptive to transportation. The
alternative of separating some existing combined storm and
sanitary sewers could be accomplished in the course of upgrading
treatment plants, and might be the least cost solution for
combined sewer overflow.
Adopting design standards for new drainage systems would
help protect future water quality. The costs of these measures
could be offset through tax breaks. The feasibility of implement-
ing these design standards would depend on adequate staffing
of the agencies responsible for supervising their enforcement.
1-11
-------
6. Selection of a Plan
The selection should be based upon systematic comparison of
the alternatives.
Example: Through a process of public involvement in the
planning process, there should be general familiarity with
options for meeting water quality goals. Having identified the
least cost plan (where cost includes economic, social and
environmental considerations), the units of government involved
in recommending plan approval might also consider compatibility
of the various alternative plans with other community goals.
7. Plan Approval and Program Implementation
Plan review and approval will be based on whether the plan
demonstrates that the 1983 water quality goals specified in
Section 101(a)(2) will be met and that the plan meets the
requirements of Part 131 regulations. The Governor must designate
management agency(s) having adequate authority and capability
to carry out the plan.
Example: The plan demonstrates that the combined measures
for abating point and nonpoint sources will be adequate for
meeting standards. However, to the extent that some of the
cause-and-effect relationships between nonpoint source problems
and water quality cannot be documented, the approval of the
plan should be contingent on development of plan performance
assessment including an ongoing monitoring program. The management
program meets the requirements of the Act for waste treatment
and regulatory programs. However, some of the regulatory
measures needed to implement the plan are in the form of legislative
proposals before local governments in the area. The plan
approval should be based on the condition that the regulatory
measures will become law within a given time period. The State
should monitor the progress of implementation and recommend or
enact alternative measures if the original regulatory proposals
are not adopted locally.
8. Periodic Updating of the Plan
A specific procedure should be defined for monitoring plan
effects and developing annual revisions to the plan.
Example: The procedure for plan updating is that instream
monitoring will be carried out by the management agency(s) to
determine needed plan revision. The State will monitor progress
of the management program and recommend specific actions needed
to assure meeting water quality standards.
1-12
I
-------
CHAPTER 2
CONTINUING PLANNING PROCESS DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL
2.1 Purpose
The purpose of the State's continuing planning process is to set up a
management program and procedures to carry out water quality planning and
implementation requirements of the Act. These requirements include standards
setting and revision (§303(c)), preparation of State Water Quality Management
Plans (S303(e) and S208), areawide planning and implementation (S208), annual
assessment and projection of water quality (§305(b)), clean lakes (S314(a)),
Federal/State estimate of publicly owned treatment works needs (S516(b)j, and
data for the Federal report on water quality (S104(a)(5)).
The continuing planning process is the State's management approach for
organizing the activities that are undertaken to complete these requirements,
as well as coordinating these activities with other programs undertaken in
the State. In order to organize and coordinate water quality planning and
implementation activities, procedures are needed to carry out the following
functions:
. identify water quality problems
. establish the goals and standards for water quality protection
. delineate organizational and program responsibilities and inter-
relationships for planning and implementing solutions to problems
. establish the relationship between water quality management and other
State programs and policies
. establish priorities, and resource commitments for water quality
program activities.
Amended regulations on the continuing planning process (40 CFR Part 130)
require the State to describe the elements to be included in the process by
which the State carries out the previously discussed functions. However, the
structure of these required elements, their timing and interrelations, are to
be determined at the discretion of the State. The purpose of the process
is to organize the State's water quality management activities. In
general, the simpler the process by which decisions are made, the more
efficient the process will be. Thus the process should have the fewest
possible number of steps and relationships to carry out the basic functions
described above.
2-1
-------
2.2 Major Steps in Developing the Process Description
Part 130.10(a)-(c) specifies the general output requirements for a
continuing planning process. The State's approach to meet each of these
general requirements should be described in its continuing planning process
submission. In order to provide a framework for discussion of the con-
tinuing planning process, these required elements can be arranged into the
following major steps leading to the development of the overall process
description:
Process Design
Provision for Inputs to the Process (coordination with other plan-
ning activities, public participation, intergovernmental input)
. Preparation of the Annual State Strategy
Preparation of the State/EPA Agreement
. Preparation of the State Water Quality Management Plan
. Revision of Water Quality Standards
. Outputs - Description of Above Process Elements
. Process Adoption and Approval; Program Implementation
These major steps of the process are depicted on the following chart
(Table 2.1) roughly in chronological order and proceed from the general to
the specific. The chart does not depict all the interactions between the
steps, nor does it depict the timing cycle of the various stages of the
process. These features of the process should be defined by the States in
their process submission. (A format for describing each of the process
elements is provided in Table 2.3).
2.3 Detailed Guidance on Required Process Elements
This detailed guidance will discuss each requirement of Part 130
according to the framework depicted in Table 2.1. In cases in which the
elements listed in Table 2.1 have further subheadings in Part 130, each
of the subheadings will also be referenced and discussed in the guidance.
A. Process Design
Process design should be the first stage of the continuing plan-
ning process. At this stage, an agency is chosen to be responsible
for defining the elements of the process, including inputs, their
relationships, and timing. In developing the process, procedures
for revision of the process and elements of the process should also
be specified. Process development includes definition of the
following:
2-2
-------
Table 2.1 State Continuing Planning Process
Major Steps and Process Elements"
Process Design
T.State Agency Responsible for Coordinating
Continuing Planning Process and State
WQM Plans"
2. Statement of Planning Authority
3. Preliminary Description of Process
Requirements
4^ Review and Revision Procedures
B. Process Inputs
TPublic Participation
2. Intergovernmental Cooperation and
Coordination
3. Program Coordination
a. Water Program Relationships
b. Coordination with other Local, State,
and Federal Programs
Preparation of Annual State
Strategy
State/EPA Agreement (including Delineation
of Planning Areas and Planning Responsibil-
ities)
1. Segment Classification; Listing of Basins
or Approved Planning Areas and Segments
2. Designation of Areawide Planning Areas
and Agencies
3. Delegation of Planning Responsibilities
4. Annual Preparation/Revision of Agreement
Preparation of Annual
State Program (§106)
Review/Revision of Water Quality
Standards and Definition of Antidegradation
Policy . ^___
Preparation of State Water Quality
Management Plans
TRequirements for State WQM Plan
Preparation
2. Review and Certification of Plans
for Areawide Planning Areas
3. Designation of Management Agencies
to Implement Plans
G.
Outputs: Description of State
Continuing Planning Process
4,
H.
Planning Process Adoption and Approval
Procedures
1. Planning Process Adoption
2. Submission
3. Review and Approval
2-3
-------
1. State Planning Agency Responsible for coordinating the
Continuing Planning Process and State WQM Plans
(§130.10(c)(6)), (§130.12)
A single agency is to be designated by the Governor to be
responsible for developing and submitting the continuing planning
process, receiving input to the process, and making appropriate
arrangements with other agencies which will have planning responsi-
bility for developing portions of the State WQM Plan.
. Description of Agency
In describing the lead State agency responsible for the
continuing planning process and the State WQM Plan, information
such as the name of agency, structure, functions, and budget
should be presented.
2. Statement of Planning Authority; Statement that Implementation
Authority Exists or Will Be Sought (§130.10(c)(11)}
The planning authority of the agency chosen to be responsible
for the continuing planning process should be clearly established
in State statute. This agency does not have to possess implementing
authority, but will have to identify management agencies that do
have such authority to carry out appropriate portions of a State
WQM Plan. At the time that a State agency is designated to carry
out the continuing planning process, an investigation should be
initiated of what general authority is needed on the part of the
State or other levels of government to implement a State WQM Plan.
Where enabling legislation is needed to establish the authority at
the State or substate level to establish water pollution management
and regulatory programs, the continuing planning process submission
should specify how such implementing authority will be obtained.
. Description of Planning Authority and Needed Implementation
Authority"
The continuing planning process submission should describe
the following aspects of needed authority for planning and
implementing State WQM Plans:
2-4
-------
- existing authority for water quality planning
- water pollution problems for which adequate authority at
State/local level exists to implement solutions
- water pollution problems for which existing State/local
authority to resolve problems is unclear or insufficient
- legislation to be sought at the State/local level to provide
adequate authority to resolve problems
As specific elements of State WQM Plans are developed,
a more specific delineation of existing and needed
authority will be possible. This information should be
included in the designation of management agencies (§130.15)
upon completion of the State WQM Plan.
3. Preliminary Description of Process Requirements (8130.10(a)-(c))
At this stage in the process, the overall structure of the
elements of the process, their input, relationships and timing and
revision procedures should be determined. When all the elements
of the process have been completed, a description of the process
can be prepared following the format suggested in Chapter 2.3.G.
4. Review and Revision of Process (S130.43)
The design of the continuing planning process should include
specification of procedures for review and revision of the process.
The process submission should include procedures for revising the
following major process elements by incorporating results of the
State WON Plan:
- Process Design
- State Strategy
- State/EPA Agreement
It is not necessary to annually revise the entire continuing
planning process design in order to incorporate new substantive
information such as a revised State Strategy. It is only necessary
to incorporate the revised substantive material into the structure
set up for continuing olanning.
2-5
-------
B. Process Inputs
The next step in developing a management program for relating water
quality and other resource management programs is to define the mechanisms
by which the general public and local elected officials will participate
in the management program. Another initial step in the management program
is to define existing water program relationships, and define other pro-
grams that have an impact on water quality. After describing the existing
programs affecting water quality and existing forms of public participa-
tion and intergovernmental participation, modifications to these program
and institutional arrangements should be proposed as part of the State's
revised continuing planning process.
1. Public Participation
• Requirements of the Act (S130.10(a)(1))
Appropriate means for public participation must be provided
at the major stages of the continuing planning process. One of these
major stages which must include public participation is the State/
EPA Agreement on level of detail and timing of the State WQM Plan.
This element of the continuing planning process is especially important
to the public, since it defines the strategy and work plan of tasks
that the State will accomplish in implementing Sections 303 and 208
and other sections of the Act. Contact should be established as soon
as possible with interested members of the public for the purpose of
formulating a program of public participation to be carried out in the
State WQM planning process. Appropriate forms of public partici-
pation must also be used in formulating the design of the con-
tinuing planning process as a whole. The Act's requirements
concerning public participation are discussed in detail in Chap-
ter 4, in which guidance is also presented on how to structure a
program of public participation to meet these requirements.
• Institutional Alternatives in Setting Up Public Participation
Programs
Since the State is responsible for the continuing planning
.process and the State WQM Plan, it is also responsible for carry-
ing out requirements for public participation. However, since it
is possible that certain planning activities will be delegated by
the State water pollution control agency to sub-state levels of
government, designated areawide planning agencies, another State
agency or to Federal agencies, it is logical that public participa-
tion in planning should also be made the responsibility of the
agencies delegated the planning function. A problem might arise,
however, if accountability to the public for various elements of
planning were divided among many agencies and units of government.
It is thus necessary for one agency in each planning area—either
2-6
-------
the State agency or a designated areawide planning agency—to be
ultimately responsible to the public for all public participation
activities. In determining the State/EPA Agreement, the State
agency should design a public participation program as described
above, and specify which agencies would be responsible to carry
out given participation activities within the larger program.
In order to make the channels of communication with the public
very clear, the State should designate one person in the State
agency to be responsible for the public participation program with-
in the State.
2. Intergovernmental Cooperation and Coordination (S130.10(a)(2)),
(§130.16)
. Adequate Input from Local and Regional Units of Government
CS130.16(a))
In order to manage water quality planning and implementation
activities for the State, the agency responsible for the continu-
ing planning process should seek the advice of affected local and
regional governments. This consultation is especially important
in developing the State Strategy, State/EPA Agreement, and carrying
out the State WQM planning responsibilities. This consultation is
also essential in making decisions concerning designation of area-
wide agencies to undertake the 208 planning responsibilities with-
in the overall State WQM Plan. Finally, consultation is needed to
provide coordination between areas with designated 208 planning
agencies, other agencies to which planning activities of the State
WQM Plan have been delegated, and the State agency responsible for
the continuing planning process.
• Institutional Arrangements (S130.16(b))
In addition to providing means for consultation between various
levels of government, and in order to provide policy direction for
the continuing planning process, the State should encourage coordi-
nation between various levels of government in water quality plan-
ning and implementation activities. The State should rely wherever
possible on existing local, regional, State, Federal, and interstate
units of government for carrying out the State WQM Plan. Further
guidance on selection of these agencies and the importance of
intergovernmental cooperation in plan implementation is provided
in Ch. 9.
2-7
-------
. Policy Advisory Committee (S130.16(c))
The purpose of an advisory group is to critique and aid plan-
ners in determining the best means to deal with water quality prob-
lems. The particular procedures for setting up an advisory group
and making use of its views are left to the discretion of the State
agency responsible for the continuing planning process. The State
should exercise discretion and imagination in setting up advisory
committee structures and procedures that best contribute to develop-
ing implementable water quality plans.
In order to clearly delineate responsibilities for receiving
input from advisory committees, the lead State agency responsible
for the State WQM Plan should develop a list of advisory groups
(including proposed membership) at the time it establishes or
revises the State/EPA Agreement and delegates planning responsi-
bilities.
A policy advisory committee, including majority representation of
locally elected officials*, affected Federal agencies and other
interested organizations, including appropriate State agencies, is to
be created. It will also be desirable to include representatives of
the general public on the policy advisory committee. While the
regulations only require one advisory group, it is strongly recommended
that at least one advisory group be established for each planning area.
Representatives from Federal land managing agencies should be included
on such committees where Federal lands constitute a significant part
of the planning area. The advisory committee should meet with the
Agency responsible for the State WQM Plan in order to discuss and make
recommendations on each of the following overall steps of planning:
review of the EPA/State Agreement, establishment of objectives and
analysis of problems, analysis of abatement measures and controls.
consideration of alternatives, and plan selection.
Each advisory group should make any recommendations it feels appro-
priate to the planning agency responsible for the State WQM Plan in
its area. The planning agency director should inform the advisory
group of his actions with the advisory group recommendations.
• Policy Advisory Committee in Designated Areawide Planning Areas
(S130.16(d))
In compliance with Section 304(j) of P.L. 92-500, the Admin-
istrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has entered into
an agreement with the Secretaries of the Departments of Agri-
culture, Army, and Interior. Notice of Final Agreements was
published in the Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 225,
November 23, 1973.
Except where the Regional Administrator at the request of the State
agrees to a lesser percentage of representation.
2-8
-------
As a result of this agreement, the planning agency must create
an advisory committee, with representatives of the Departments of
Agriculture, Interior, and Army invited to participate. Each
Department may or may not participate as it deems appropriate.
This requirement provides for coordination of the programs auth-
orized under other Federal laws with water quality planning.
Provisions should also be made for inclusion of representatives
of the general public on an Areawide Policy Advisory Committee.
The membership may be further expanded as considered appropriate
by EPA and the State. A special effort should be made to include
representatives of agencies responsible for other environmental
programs being conducted in the planning area.
• Interstate and International Cooperation (S130.16(e))
The advice of affected adjacent States and Nations is necessary
in conducting the continuing planning process. Consultation
between the State agency responsible for the continuing planning
process and other affected States could take place through exist-
ing organizations such as interstate basin commissions. Inter-
national consultation should be undertaken through the U.S.
Department of State. Where State WQM Plans are developed for
interstate or international waters, an exchange of draft plans
and comments on such drafts should be arranged between the appro-
priate parties.
3. Program Coordination (S130.10Ca)(3))
a. Water Program Relationships
The State's water program is composed of a number of acti-
vities all of which should be coordinated to produce effective
water quality management decisions. The following program
relationships should be defined in the continuing planning
process:
(1) Relationship to Monitoring and Surveillance Program
• State Monitoring Program (S130.30(a))
The minimum requirements for a' State monitoring
strategy and program are described in 40 CFR Subpart B,
Appendix A. These regulations should be consulted in
preparing the continuing planning process description
so that the State's monitoring strategy and program
2-9
-------
may be coordinated with other program elements such as
the preparation of State WQM Plans, the revision of
water quality standards, and implementation of an anti-
deqradation policy.
• Stream Monitoring Needs for State WQM Plan Preparation
(S130.30(b)T ~
In general, monitoring information is needed for the
following elements of a State WQM Plan:
water quality assessment
and segment classifica-
tion (8131.ll(b)j includ-
ing nonpoint source
assessment (§131 .ll(d))
inventories and projec-
tions (8131.ll(c))
water quality standards
(8131.ll(e))
This element of the
plan should be initially
based on existing data.
Monitoring should, how-
ever, be undertaken to
clarify gaps in existing
data, especially for wet
weather flow conditions,
and parameters that might
be included in revised
water quality standards.
Information on waste
discharge from municipal
and industrial sources
is to be based on NPDES
data and compliance
monitoring.
Monitoring programs
should be established
to determine exist-
ing water quality where
data is insufficient
to determine the levels
of water quality to
be maintained through
the State's antidegra-
dation policy. Infor-
mation on historic
water quality is also
needed to help determine
natural background
levels of pollution.
2-10
-------
- total maximum daily -- Additional monitoring
loads (5131.11(f)) information may be
needed to determine
whether a segment is
in fact water quality
limited. Next, data on
the rate of pollutant
loading of significant
point source dischargers
and estimates of nonpoint
source waste load rates
to the segment may be
needed to determine the
total maximum daily load
and relative contribution
of point and nonpoint
sources to a segment under
both dry weather and wet
weather flow conditions.
Sufficient data is needed
to enable reliable use of
models. The models would
then be used to establish
point source waste load
allocations.
The State should develop and describe its method for
meeting each of the above needs.
. Groundwater Monitoring Needs for State WQM Plan
Preparation (S130.30(c))
The State agency or other agencies delegated planning
responsibilities should define those areas where ground-
water problems exist or may exist in the future. The
following criteria should be considered in determining
areas where groundwater problems may exist:
- previous detection of concentration of pollutants
in groundwater above the maximum contaminent levels
of the National Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (40 CFR 141).
- presence of one or more of the following problems
or activities (where these activities have caused
significant problems in the past under similar
conditions): waste disposal areas including land
fills, land disposal of sewage or sludge, waste
lagoons, deep well injection activities, subsurface
2-11
-------
excavation, leaching to groundwater from sur-
face irrigation, pumping of groundwater in excess
of natural recharge, leakage from underground
transmission lines or septic tanks or concentrated
animal feeding operations, anticipated new activi-
ties or problems such as one or more of those
discussed above. Prior to a new activity which is
suspected to cause an increase in groundwater pol-
lutant concentration, the State should conduct a
background survey to determine existing ground-
water quality prior to initiation of new poten-
tially polluting activities. The State should
also determine whether authority exists, and
attempt to gain authority, to require persons
conducting such activities to conduct background
surveys of groundwater quality.
The State should develop appropriate criteria for
determining where it will undertake groundwater monitoring
and describe the methods to be used to meet groundwater
monitoring needs to support State WQM Plan development.
(2) Municipal Facilities (S130.34(b)), (S130.31)
. Relationship between State WQM Planning and Section 201
Facility Planning (S130.34(b))
Pursuant to Part 131.11(h), the State WQM Plan is to
include certain elements of planning for municipal col-
lection and treatment systems. Guidance on this element
of the State WQM Plan is presented in Ch. 3.6 and Ch. 8.
The following facility planning outputs should be summa-
rized in State WQM Plans for any facilities expected to
receive a construction grant award during the five years
following initial plan approval:
- delineation of service areas and population to be
served
- preliminary estimate of municipal wastewater flows
over the twenty year planning period
- preliminary identification of alternative treatment
systems
- preliminary specification of infiltration/inflow
problems and possible solutions; preliminary speci-
fication of sludge disposal or utilization options
- preliminary cost estimates for collection, treatment,
infiltration/inflow correction and sludge utilization
or disposal
- proposed program for financing above measures
- preliminary determination of which alternatives are
likely to be most cost-effective.
2-12
-------
These outputs are to utilize approved 201 and 208 plans
where available. Where these outputs have not been or will
not be developed through 201 or 208 planning, they are
to be developed as part of the State WQM Plan.
. Consistency of Approved State WQM Plan Outputs with
Facilities Program (S130.31(a). (bTT
After the State has approved the municipal facility
element pursuant to §131.11(h), further Step 1, 2,
and 3 facilities grants are to be consistent with the
approved facility outputs. Further facility planning
and construction grants may only be made to the manage-
ment agency(s) designated pursuant to §131.11(o) to imple-
ment the facility portion of the State WQM Plan. The
Regional Administrator is given the responsibility for
making the consistency determination.
. Incomplete Municipal Assessment—Relationship with
Facilities Program (§130.31(a), (5)7
Where the municipal facility outputs required under
Part 131.11(h) are not complete and approved, the
Regional Administrator may elect to delay approving a
facilities planning or construction grant until an
adequate assessment of the needs and priorities of the
area has been developed.
. Timing of Facilities Assessment (S130.31(d))
Because the facilities outputs required in §131.11(h)
are critical for maintaining an integrated program for
facilities planning and construction, these outputs
should be timed in accordance with construction priori-
ties in the State. The EPA/State Agreement should be
closely coordinated with the State's facilities program.
(3) State Participation in NPDES Program (S130.32(a), (b), (c))
The State's participation in the NPDES program is con-
tingent upon having an approved continuing planning process.
In addition to process-approval, the various activities of
the continuing planning process must be carried out accord-
ing to statutory time schedules. Once the plan or portions
2-13
-------
of the State WOM Plan are approved, point source permits
must be consistent with these.plans. See Chapter 3.10 for
the procedure for State WQM Plan adoption.
. Timing of State WQM Plan Completion and Permits
The completion of the State WQM Plan is needed in
water quality limited segments to provide wasteload
allocations for dischargers requiring permits. Every
effort should be made to complete water quality analyses
and wasteload allocations for those areas of the State
where it is expected that higher than base level con-
trols will be needed to meet water quality standards.
Schedules for completing these analyses should be phased
according to the timing of NPDES permit renewal as well
as construction grants. High priority should also be
placed on completing water quality analyses in areas
where major new industrial location is expected. These
timing considerations should be carefully considered
in developing the State/EPA Agreement.
(4) Designated 208 Areawide Haste Treatment Management
Planning Program Relationship (S130.33(a))
The State is responsible for developing the total
State WQM Plan. The principal components of the plan are:
. Water Quality Analysis Program
- Water Quality Assessments (including nonpoint
source assessment) and Segment Classifications
- Inventories and Projection of Dischargers
- Revision of Standards
- Total Maximum Daily Loads
- Wasteload Allocations
(Note: These requirements stem from Sections 303,
305(b), and 314 of the Act.)
2-14
-------
. Water Quality Implementation Program
- Municipal and Industrial Treatment Works Program*
- Urban Stormwater Management Program
- Residual Waste Management Program
- Nonpoint Source Management Program
- Target Abatement Dates
- Regulatory Program
- Management Agency(s) and Institutional Arrangements
to Supervise and Finance Plan Implementation
(Note: These latter requirements stem primarily from
Section 208 of the Act.)
The first set of elements provides technical direction for
the State WQM Plan in the form of water quality goals and evalua-
tion of permissible levels of pollutant loading in receiving
waters, while the second set of elements involves a determina-
tion of particular abatement measures, regulatory controls
and financial and management arrangements to meet the water
quality goals. These two sets of plan elements are logically
interrelated.
The State may designate areawide planning agencies to
carry out the latter elements and provide much of the analysis
needed by the State to finalize the former elements. In areas
which are not designated as areawide planning areas, the entire
State WQM Plan for that area is to be completed by the State.
Nevertheless, the State may delegate (if these agencies agree)
portions of the planning to sub-state or Federal agencies.
In the State/EPA Agreement for each area, the State must
identify the agency responsible for each of these planning
elements..
. Coordination of Areawide Planning and State WQM
Development (S130.10(c)(8); S130r33(b), (c))
Since the designated areawide planning agencies will
play a key role in completing the State WQM plan, they
should be consulted by the State agency responsible for
the continuing planning process in the formulation of
the process and especially in the State Strategy and
EPA/State Agreement. The EPA/State Agreement is the
This refers to the requirements of §131.11(n), (i). The relationship
between facility planning outputs developed in the State WQM Plan and
completion of the Step 1 facility planning requirements is discussed in
Chapter 3.6 and Chapter 8.
2-15
-------
basis for establishing the precise division of
responsibilities for the various elements of the
State WQM Plan. Since the water quality analysis
elements of the State WQM Plan are critical to
completing designated areawide plans, the EPA/State
Agreement must specify how the State will ensure
completion of these elements in phase with the needs
of designated areawide agencies in time to meet the 1983 water
quality goal and should indicate the milestones that the State
will use to monitor the progress of planning conducted by
areawide planning agencies. The State/EPA Agreement should
also specify how areawide planning will be coordinated for
interstate waters.
Due to time and resource constraints, the State may
delegate some of the analytic elements of the State WQM
Plan (inventories and projections, maximum daily loads,
wasteload allocations, schedules of compliance) to
designated agencies for completion, subject to State
review. Whatever division of responsibilities is
established between the State and designated areawide
planning agencies, the plan elements developed by area-
wide agencies should be reviewed for consistency with
the State WQM Plan and incorporated into the State WQM
Plan after review and certification as specified in
S131.20(f). Guidance on determination of consistency
of designated areawide plans with the State WQM Plan is
found in Chapter 3.10. In the case of nonpoint source
planning, the State has the option under Section 208(b)(4)
of pre-empting the nonpoint source planning and implementa-
tion in designated areas. In order to present the mini-
mum of uncertainty to the designated area planning process,
the State should establish its intentions regarding non-
point source planning in the State/EPA Agreement.
b. Coordination with Other Local, State, and Federal Planning
Programs (SI30.34)
Water quality management is affected by policies concerning
land use, regional development, and many planning activities
carried out in a State. Information concerning these policies
and plans is needed as an input to the State continuing planning
process and State WQM Plan. The effect of these policies and
plans on attaining water quality objectives should be evaluated.
In addition, it is necessary to consider the impact that the
water quality management plan may have on other plans and policies
of the State. The following guidance suggests some of the program
relationships that should be defined in the State's continuing
2-16
-------
planning process submission. (Guidance on techniques for
coordinating water quality and other planning activities is
further discussed in Chapter 12.)
(1) Relationship with EPA Solid Haste Programs
Section 208(b)(2)(C) calls for regulatory programs over
all dischargers, as well as processes to control disposition
of residual waste and disposal of pollutants on land or in
subsurface excavations. The specific coverage of these
elements of State WQM Plans is discussed further in Chapter 3,
Thus, solid waste and sludge disposal regulation for water
quality protection is needed in a State WQM Plan. The Solid
Waste Disposal Act as amended authorizes the preparation of
State solid waste management plans. These plans provide for
locational decisions and management of land disposal of solid
wastes. In developing programs for dealing with water pollu-
tion from solid waste and residual disposal, State plans for
solid waste management should be examined for recommended
organizational and technological solutions pertaining to the
affected area. State solid waste management officials and
local agencies with primary responsibility for regulating
and implementing solid waste management controls have exper-
tise in this area and should be consulted when developing a
management program. The effects of the management program
should be considered and appropriate measures taken in coop-
eration with local agencies to ensure compatibility between
the water quality management provisions and solid waste
management within the area.
(2) Relationship with EPA Air Quality Programs
• State Implementation Plan
All States are required under the Clean Air Act, to
develop and implement State Implementation Plans (SIP's)
which will meet and maintain the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). Measures and procedures that
would-be included in the SIP are:
- Stationary Source Review
- New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
- Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP)
- Transportation Controls
- Air Quality Maintenance Planning
2-17
-------
Many of the control strategies developed under the SIP will
affect land use and development decisions. For example, trans-
portation controls involving mass transit require certain popula-
tion densities to be effective. The State should make sure that
population projections and control strategies developed under the
SIP are consistent with those for the State WQM Plan. To assure
consistency, the State should encourage frequent communication
and exchange of information between the agencies responsible for
the two plans, provide for integration of data requirements and
plan elements when practicable, and resolve conflicts in policy
which may develop between the two plans.
• Air Quality Maintenance Planning
Air Quality Maintenance Planning (AQMP) is a part of the SIP
that is required for areas where it has been determined that there
exists the potential for exceeding the NAAQS in the future.
The State must submit a plan containing stricter control measures
that will ensure the maintenance of the standards.
The plan is updated at least every 5 years. In many areas,
AQM areas overlap or are essentially the same as designated
areas, in which case the planning for the AQM area should be closely
coordinated with the areawide planning. If the planning
boundaries for the State WQM Plan include planning area(s) with
boundaries similar to that of an AQM area, planning within the
planning area(s) should be closely coordinated with the planning
for the AQMP. Representatives of the AQM planning agency should
be on advisory groups, and there should be periodic reporting and
exchange of information.between the agencies designated to do the
State WQM Plan with a planning area(s) and the planning agencies
responsible for the AQMP.
(3) Relationship with Programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act
A number of important relationships exist between programs under
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the Preparation of State WQM
Plans. While exact program relationships are still being defined by
EPA, the States should describe existing areas of overlap between
their water supply programs and State WQM Plan. The States should
seek the advice of EPA Regional Offices concerning future relation-
ships with programs authorized under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The following are some of the major program relationships
between water supply and water quality planning that should be
defined:
2-18
-------
Siting of public water supply -
systems
Protection of aquifer recharge-
areas
Water quality standards and - The State should define in its water
drinking water standards quality standards revision process
pursuant to SI30.17, how water quality
standards policy will be coordinated
with existing and proposed State law
regarding drinking water or water
intake standards.
The State should define how regula-
tory programs over location of waste
discharging facilities pursuant to
Section'208(b)(2)(C) of the Act will
be coordinated with existing or pro-
posed State law regarding location
of public water supply facilities.
The State should define how point and
nonpoint source regulatory programs
to be undertaken pursuant to Section
208(b)(2)(C) -of the Act will be coor-
dinated with existing or proposed
State law protecting sole source
aquifers or aquifer recharge areas.
The State should indicate how regulatory
programs for deep well injection or
subsurface disposal of pollutants re-
quired pursuant to Sections 208(b)(2)(C)
and 208(b)(2)(K) of the Act will be
coordinated with other existing or pro-
posed State law concerning protection
of water supply.
(4) Relationship with Level B Studies
. Program Coordination
Section 209 of the FWPCAA authorizes the preparation of Level B
plans for all basins in the United States. These plans are to ana-
lyze water and related land resources management problems and serve
as a basis for recommendation to Congress of priorities for "inves-
tigation, planning, and construction of projects" (42 U.S.C. 1962(b)).
In order to minimize collection of new data in preparation of
a Level B plan, maximum utilization should be made of on-going State
planning programs. A portion of State input to Level B studies can
be provided through these programs, but only if complementarities
are identified. States should work to coordinate their State WQM
Plan with any Level B planning occurring within their State, and
Underground
pollutants
injection of
2-19
-------
provide the agencies responsible for Level B planning with needed
water quality inputs. In addition, the States should work with
the Level B planning agency to assure that adequate attention is
given to water quality objectives, expecially in areas with major
nonpoint source pollution problems.
Level B plans can assist State WQM Plan efforts by facilitating
interstate consistency in development and application of nonpoint
source control measures, and by providing a mechanism to identify
responsibilities of Federal agencies (through their involvement in
Level B planning) to eliminate or ameliorate point and nonpoint
source pollution.
. Specific Program Relationships (§130.34(c))
Where Level B studies are being conducted or have been completed,
outputs of these studies should be incorporated into the State WQM
Plan. These outputs are listed in Part 130.34(c)(l)-(7). Guidance
on incorporating these outputs into the State WQM Plan is discussed
below:
- Existing and Projected Water Withdrawals and Consumptive
Demand
This information should be related to municipal and industrial
wastewater flow projections (§131.11(c) of the State WQM Plan)
especially where availability of water is a limiting factor in
future development of an area. Information on future surface and
groundwater supply should be related to water quality (including
salt water intrusion and salinity) assessment and pollution
control needs in the State WOM Plan.
- Water Supply Facilities, Effects on Water Quality
Where water supply facilities are projected, an analysis of
their effect on water quality should be included in the State
WQM Plan. The analysis should include assessment of the impact
of water treatment processes (and associated residuals) on
instream water quality.
- Water Development Measures, Watershed Management
The water quality impact of existing and proposed hydrologic
modifications and management measures (dams, impoundments, levees,
channelization) should be included in the water quality analysis
conducted in the State WQM Plan where such developments have a
2-20
-------
substantial impact on water quality and pollution control needs.
- Mild and Scenic Rivers
Where proposals are made in Level B studies for Wild and
Scenic Rivers designation, or where such designations have been
made, the State should develop appropriate water quality stand-
ards (including antidegradation policy) and implementation
measures in the State WQM Plan, in order to protect the rivers
that are so designated.
- Energy Development
Where energy development affecting water quality or quantity
is projected, appropriate pollution control considerations should
be incorporated into the State WQM Plan.
. Future Level B Studies S130.34(d)
Where Level B studies have not been initiated to the extent that
information is available, an analysis of the effects of the foregoing
water development and conservation projects on water quality should
be developed in the State WQM Plan as an input to future Level B
studies.
(5) Relationship with Other State and Federal Programs
A number of Federal agencies are involved in programs which are
related to the State WQM Plan. These may be classed as either grant
programs or management and technical assistance programs. Examples
of the former are the HUD 701 program, the Coastal Zone Management
program under NOAA, and DOT transportation plans. Examples of the
latter are the activities of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Soil
Conservation Service and the Forest Service. Other planning and
implementation activities may be carried on at the State level in addition
to those funded through Federal programs. Included among these would
be the programs of State soil and water conservation agencies, natural
resources departments, fish and wildlife agencies, agricultural
departments etc.
Since the planning efforts of these various programs may have
direct interrelationships with the planning done for the State WQM
Plan, especially in the area of land use, steps should be taken to
ensure that there is consistency between the plans. Coastal Zone
Management Plans, for example, determine permissible and priority land
and water uses for coastal areas of a State. HUD 701 Plans similarly
include a land use element. Such land use policies must be consistent
with the maintenance of water quality and nonpoint source controls which
would affect land use. Guidance on techniques for plan coordination
may be found in Chapter 12.
2-21
-------
In addition to .planning efforts, other Federal agencies are
directly involved in programs within the States which relate to
the State WQM Plan. Many of the Corps of Engineers activities,
for example, can have a significant effect on water quality. In
addition, the Corps provides technical assistance which can be of
use to a State preparing a State WQM Plan. One way this is done
is through the Corps' Urban Studies Program which is concerned
with urban water resources problems, including wastewater manage-
ment. In addition, the Corps is specifically directed to provide
technical assistance for areawide planning (Section 208(h) FWPCA).
EPA and the Coras have developed an agreement which specifies the
coordinating and funding policy regarding this assistance.
Other Federal land and water managing agencies such as the
Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Reclamation should be
contacted by the State in order to work out specific arrangement
for developing water quality management plans for Federal lands.
Other Federal programs can also be of use to the States in
preparing their State WQM Plan. The Soil Conservation Service of
the Department of Agriculture can provide technical assistance in
the assessment and control of nonpoint sources, especially those
resulting from uses which can cause soil erosion. In addition, all of
SCS administered programs are implemented through local Soil and
Water Conservation Districts. These conservation districts, which
are legal subdivisions of state government established under state
law, have the responsibility for planning and carrying out erosion
control and related conservation programs. With the assistance
of their cooperating agencies, they can help provide information
on nonpoint source control techniques, provide technical assistance
in planning for utilization of such techniques, and assist in im-
plementation of the measures. In some states, the districts have
plan approval and other responsibilities in connection with mandatory
State and local sediment control programs.
The Forest Service, as land managers, needs to establish cooper-
ative planning relationships with each State that has U.S. forest
lands. The State should develop specific agreements with the Forest
Service on how to relate its watershed management program to the
State WQM Plan. EPA can assist in establishing the necessary rela-
tionships. The Forest Service does provide technical and financial f
assistance to the States for the administration of State and private
forest lands. These programs should be coordinated with the State
WQM Plan.
Other Department of Agriculture programs include the Agricul-
tural Conservation Program administered by the Agricultural Stab-
ilization and Conservation Service which can supply cost-sharing
assistance for many of the Best Management Practices that may be
necessary to control runoff and reduce sedimentation from farms.
Technical assistance for this program is given by the Soil Con-
servation Service and Forest Service. ^
2-22
-------
In summary, the State should determine the relationship between water
quality and other planning programs within the State, ensure consistency
between the plans, and work with Federal programs to make use of their
technical expertise.
(6) Planning Requirements for Federal Properties, Facilities,
or Activities SI30.35'
. Compliance with State and Local Pollution Control Requirements
S130.35U)
The State holds ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the
WQM Plans are prepared and implemented throughout the State.
Federal facilities and in some cases large holdings of federal
lands are found in practically all States. Pollution control
requirements for federal facilities and lands are stated in Section
313 of the Act, Executive Order 11752 and 40 CFR Part 130.35.
The Executive Order requires compliance by federal facilities
with Federal, State, interstate, and local substantive standards
and limitations dealing with the control of environmental pollu-
tion. State water quality standards, effluent limitations and
discharge permits are specifically cited as substantive requirements.
Compliance with other requirements including land use requirements
or best management practices are not specifically cited as
substantive requirements. Thus Federal agencies are required to
meet State water quality standards but are given latitude to
define their approach to meeting these standards.
Point sources are subject to NPDES permits. For Federal sources
EPA is the permitting authority. For non-Federal sources on
Federal lands, the State issues the permits after EPA approves the
State's permit program. Under Executive Order 11752, the Federal
Land Manager (FLM) determines what is a Federal or non-Federal
source on his lands. The agency with State water quality manage-
ment point source planning responsibilities for Federal facilities
or lands should work with the FLM to delineate which types of
sources are Federal and which are not. In general Federal sources
should be those operated by the Federal agency or in behalf of its
mission. Non-Federal sources would include effluents from activit-
ies carried out on Federal lands under lease or permit (timber
harvesting, mining, recreational cabins, ski lodges, etc.).
Where meeting the substantive requirements of State water quality
standards will require land management controls, as may be the case
with nonpoint source pollution, these controls would be considered
procedural for the purposes of Executive Order 11752. Thus, the
FLM would be responsible for development and enforcement of such
controls. However, such controls would have to be at least as
2-23
-------
stringent as State/local controls for adjacent lands with similar
kinds of problems and characteristics in order to provide needed
levels of pollution abatement.
• Federal-State Cooperation in Plan Development (S130.35(b)-(d))
Federal lands are an area of overlapping responsibility since
the State is responsible for developing nonpoint source abatement
measures to protect water quality and the FLM is responsible for
meeting water quality standards following this plan or any other
effective approach. In order to avoid duplication of planning, it
is EPA policy to encourage the development of cooperative agree-
ments between the State and appropriate FLM. Such agreements
should outline the responsibilities of both the'State and the FLM
in developing and implementing the controls necessary to meet water
quality standards on federal lands including participation of the
FLM on the State Water Quality Policy Advisory Committee, and other
policy advisory committees for planning areas within the State,
development of Best Management Practices, and establishment of any
necessary implementing, operating, or regulatory programs. If no
agreement can be reached the differences will be mediated by EPA
and, if necessary, by the Office of Management and Budget,,
All expenditures necessary to plan for and implement point and
nonpoint source controls for Federal sources are to be included
in the budget of the FLM. Under the provisions of Section 313
of the Act, no exemptions shall be granted due to lack of appro-
priation available. This does not preclude contractual arrange-
ments between the State and the FLM for technical planning
assistance.
C. Preparation of Annual State Strategy
1. Purpose
The State Strategy is the management device used to define water
quality problems Statewide, prioritize the control of those problems,
schedule the corrective measures to be taken, and generally project the
resources needed to accomplish the tasks. Thus the State Strategy
provides direction for preparing the Annual State 106 Program.
2. Relationship to National Program Guidance (§130.20(a))
Prior to the development of the State Strategy, each State will be
provided with the National Strategy and National Operating Guidance
developed by EPA. These two documents set out the basic objectives and
2-24
-------
priorities of the National Program and should give the States enough
information to construct their own individual Strategy, integrating
the essential requirements of the National Program, while incorporat-
ing more localized State needs. The Regional Offices will assist the
States in producing the proper balance.
3. Contents of Strategy:
- Input to Strategy
In gathering the information needed to develop an annual State
Strategy the following information should be consulted:
- completed or ongoing State WQM Plans
- inputs for development of State WQM Plans (described in Ch. 3.5)
- other planning activities related to water quality and water
resources (described in Ch. 2.3.B)
- Problem Assessment (S130.20(a)Q))
The first step in the development of the State Strategy is the
consolidation of available water quality data to assess water quality
problems Statewide. The best way to aggregate the data is by stream
segment. The quality of the waters of a segment should be defined
at stream monitoring stations within that segment. Each segment
should be analyzed on the basis of the criteria set forth in approved
water quality standards to ascertain the segment's ability to provide
for a balanced population of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for
recreational activities. The State may find that present water
quality conditions could be more appropriately analyzed at the basin
or sub-basin levels. However, for consistency at both the national
and State levels, each State should attempt to aggregate water
quality data at the segment level.
The State's annual water quality inventory report (305(b) Report)
requires much of the same water quality assessment data as the State
Strategy. Since the 305(b) Report is intended to be far more com-
prehensive than the Strategy's problem assessment, the relevant
aspects of the 305(b) report should be used to constitute the problem
assessment. EPA has previously provided the States with guidelines for
the development of the 305(b) report which should be consulted. After
the water quality assessments required under S131.11(b) and (d) have
been developed, this information should be used in preparation of the
Annual State Strategy as well as the 305(b) report.
2-25
-------
- Priority and Ranking (S130.20(a)(2))
Based on the water quality assessment, each segment within the
State should be ranked in order of priority. This may have been
done previously in Phase I Plans. From the water quality manage-
ment plans completed in the past two years, and from routine or
intensive monitoring activities, the State may be in a position
to more accurately assess problem segments, and to some degree, amend
the original ranking. Generally, water quality limited segments
should receive a higher rank than effluent limited segments. The
complex nature of a water quality limited segment may require a
longer time frame required to control pollution in these segments.
The water quality assessment should yield most of the informa-
tion needed to rank the segments. However, extent of pollution
problem may not necessarily be the only factor used for purposes
of ranking segments. Preservation of high quality waters, the
size of the population being affected by a pollution problem, or
other appropriate criteria may be used also. There is no specified
weighting which any of the chosen criteria should receive except
that the State should generally consider control of its worst
pollution problems first.
The ranking of segments should be used together with the muni-
cipal treatment works inventory developed pursuant to §131.11 (c)
to formulate the State's project priority list required in S35.915(c).
Project priorities should reflect both the severity of pollution
problems in different segments (e.g. segment ranking) and the
severity of pollution problems caused by municipal facilities (e.g.
municipal inventory ranking).
- Approach to Solving Problems (S130.20(a)(3))
After the State has completed the ranking of each segment, another
required step is development of an overview of the State's approach
to solving its water quality problems.
The overview should highlight only the most significant pollution
problems and the State's approach to solving them. This information
should be readily available from completed water quality management
plans, or where there are none completed, from ambient monitoring
data. The overview is intended to focus concern on the type of
pollution problems which generally exist in each basin or geographic
area of the State.
In developing its overview, the State should decide which basins
or geographic areas exhibit pollution problems of most immediate
concern and which areas will receive the major concentration. For
2-26
-------
example, municipal point source controls may suffice, or a difficult
nonpoint source problem may dictate intense research and additional
monitoring. As nonpoint problems are exceedingly difficult to
control, the State should construct a realistic long-term strategy
utilizing all available water quality data.
- Scheduling of Programs (S130.20(a)(5))
After basic problem identification has been cited, basin or
geographic priorities listed, and a general approach to alleviating
the problems conceptualized, the State must describe
program activities to implement the general scheme.
A crucial aspect of scheduling program activities is their timing.
Each water segment should have the various activities coordinated in
proper sequence. Any facilities planning, permitting, construction,
monitoring, or enforcement should be planned so that the actions taken
may be mutually reinforced. Planning should generally be completed
prior to other actions being taken. Municipal construction (grant
award) should be closely coordinated with any permit activities. Any
necessary action which the State plans call for over the next five
years should be clearly spelled out with proper phasing indicated.
This provides a mechansim by which the State can better assess the
objectives necessary to upgrade water quality in each segment and
ascertain the resources needed to implement these various activities.
- Program Resource Needs (S130.20(a)(4))
A necessary element in a definition of water quality problems
and solutions is an estimate of the resources that will be required
to implement corrective actions. Such estimates should be consistent
with a State's Water Quality Management Plan, and cover a time frame
of sufficient duration to indicate a relationship between planned
actions and resource utilization. Once determined, these resources
estimates will provide a basis for continuous program planning and
budget justification.
Each State is required to prepare and update annually a year-by-
year, five (5) year estimate of the resources needed to conduct the
State program. These estimates should be detailed by major program
element for the financial and man-year resource requirements for each
year. Greater detail may be appropriate for the first year resource
estimates. A description of the method or methods used to determine
estimates and projections over the five year period should be included
to indicate the relationship of future resource requirements to future
achievements.
2-27
-------
Since the result of this resource estimation is important in
effective program planning and budget justification, the
methodology used should be sufficiently rigorous to assure a
meaningful statement of need. EPA will provide guidance on
alternative methods for preparation of these resource estimates
and projections.
- Monitoring Strategy (S130.20(a)(6))
Refer to the discussion of monitoring found in Ch. 2.3.B.3.
4. Submission of Strategy (S130.20(b))
The annual State Strategy should be submitted as part of the
continuing planning process annual program submission (see Ch. 2.3.H).
Both the annual State Strategy and any revisions to the continuing
planning process should be submitted with the Section 106 Program
Submission.
D. Preparation of State/EPA Agreement Including Delineation of
Planning Areas and Planning Responsibilities
Based on the information in the State Strategy, a specific agreement
on planning responsibilities and tasks is needed in order to carry out
the State WQH Plan. This agreement must be submitted within 150 days
after the effective date of the Part 130 regulations as part of the
State's continuing planning process submission. The agreement is to be
reviewed annually and revised if necessary,as part of the annual planning
process review (S130.43).
In order to specify the planning tasks and responsibilities in the
State/EPA Agreement, the State should determine the areas where various
forms of planning are needed and the agencies that might be delegated
planning responsibilities in these areas. The following are some of the
steps leading to development of the Agreement:
1. Segment Classification; Listing and Maps of Planning
Areas and Segments (S130.10Cc)(2), (3))
The continuing planning process submission must delineate
planning boundaries, including segments within those boundaries,
where the planning activities required in Part 131 are to take place.
It must be recognized that this delineation of planning areas depends
on accurate assessment of water quality problems and segment classi-
fication. However at the time of submission of the revised continu-
ing planning process, it may not be possible to definitively classify
effluent limited and water quality segments due to the following factors:
2-28
-------
- lack of definition of water quality standards to achieve the
1983 goals
- inadequate data on the high flow-wet weather problems caused
by nonpoint sources
. Segment Classification
The initial delineation of segments should be based on best
available information and may require further refinement. However,
the following segment delineation could probably be made notwithstand-
ing the lack of information concerning the factors discussed above:
- Where segments are now classified as water quality limited,
due primarily to point sources for which effluent limitations
for 1977 and 1983 do not differ to a very large degree (example:
municipal treatment requirements), the probability is that the
segment will remain water quality limited.
- Where increase in waste loads is expected to exceed the
assimilative capacity of the stream after application of effluent
limitations required by 1983, the segment should be classified
as water quality limited.
- Where a segment is now water quality limited, with substantial
nonpoint source or stormwater discharges, it should be tentatively
classified as water quality limited.
- Waters which are above standards and in which no degradation
will be allowed should be classified as water quality limited.
- Where the existing classification is effluent limited and
antidegradation policy will not be applied, assuming no large
nonpoint source problems, and assuming a moderate amount of
growth, the segment may be tentatively classified as effluent
limited.
- Areas where the State intends to certify pursuant to §130.11(b)
that no pollution problems exist, or will exist over the planning
period, could be classified as effluent limited.
. Planning Area Selection
The tentative segment classification will indicate where differ-
ent levels of water quality exist in the State. Based on this
2-29
-------
information, planning areas can be delineated for carrying out
the State WQM Plan.
The revised Part 130 regulations provide flexibility in the
choice of planning area. The following are approaches to delineate
planning areas that may be used singly or in combination:
- hydro!ogic boundaries -- Certain of the requirements of the
State WQM Plan (segment classification, calculation of total
maximum daily loads) should generally be carried out according
to hydro!ogic units.
- political boundaries — Political units may be used as plan-
ning areas for carrying out the requirements of the State
WQM Plan with respect to development of abatement measures.
Under either of these approaches, the State can be divided
geographically into mutually exclusive planning areas. However,
it is possible to interpret planning area as referred to in §130.11,
to mean any area for which planning for particular problems is
conducted. Under this latter interpretation, it is possible for
one form of water pollution problem to overlap with areas having
other forms of water pollution. The State may delineate
both mutually exclusive and overlapping areas and subareas.,
However, some requirements, such as the water quality analyses
and determination of maximum allowable pollutant loads need to
be conducted for single, mutually exclusive, areas of the State.
The following are factors to consider in determining whether to
delineate areas for various forms of planning:
2-30
-------
- Area versus category approach
Once water quality analyses including calculation of total
maximum daily loads and wasteload allocations have been develop-
ed, there are two basic alternatives for developing abatement
strategies to meet these wasteload constraints within given
planning areas.
The area approach involves simultaneous development of
alternative abatement measures for all sources within the plan-
ning area. To carry out this approach requires developing
estimates of pollution generation for each unit of land in the
planning area and consideration of alternative abatement measures
for such units. This approach depends on developing a great
deal of information on the problems of an area before considering
abatement alternatives. The advantage of the approach is that
by developing a comprehensive analysis of all the problems of
an area, it is possible to consider the cost effectiveness of
alternatives between abatement of various point and nonpoint
sources. This approach is presented in greater depth in Ch. 6.
The category approach involves delineating subareas within a
planning area where particular forms of pollution or pollution
generating activity occur, and developing abatement measures for
each of these pollution sources, one at a time. The level of
abatement for each source should be based on the water quality
analysis (conducted on a hydro!ogic basis). This approach enables
focusing on priority problems and developing immediate solutions
without having to consider the interaction and cost effectiveness
tradeoffs among all the abatement alternatives. Under this
approach it is possible that one geographic area will be in a
planning subarea for various forms of pollution. It is also
possible for the subareas to overlap. Planning procedures based
on this approach are further discussed in Ch. 3.6.
- Areas where planning is not required
Whichever of the above approaches (or combination of approaches)
for planning area delineation is used, it is possible that there
will be areas where the State can certify, pursuant to SI30.11(b)
that no pollution problems exist (see discussion of this certifi-
cation procedure on page 2-35). While it is conceivable that
the State would delineate these areas along political jurisdic-
tions, it could even choose those areas where no particular form
of pollution exists to be delineated along hydrologic boundaries.
2-31
-------
In addition to technical considerations, institutional
factors should be kept in mind in determining how to delineate
planning areas. Part 130 regulations require institutional
coordination including adequate intergovernmental input,
public participation, and coordination with other planning
activities. In addition, a State/EPA Agreement on level of
detail and timing should be developed for each planning area.
This places practical limitations in the approach of having
overlapping planning areas. Consequently, where complex
water quality problems and institutional constraints exist
to Statewide planning, the area level planning approach is
probably more feasible.
2. Designation of Areawide Planning Areas and Agencies; Description
of Existing and Proposed Designations (S130.13); (131.10(e).(f))
Where the State chooses to delegate major planning responsibilities
for development of the State WQM Plan to a single representative agency,
the State should consider designating the area as an areawide planning
area pursuant to Section 208(a)(2)-(4). Guidance on the procedures and
criteria for designating such areas will be contained in a separate
handbook entitled "Area and Agency Designation Handbook." This hand-
book will be available through the EPA Regional Offices. This handbook
indicates the information to be submitted to EPA in describing proposed
areawide planning agency designations.
3. Delegation of Planning Responsibilities (S130.10(c)(9), §130.14)
. Planning Responsibilities (S130.14(a))
As part of the work plan established in the EPA/State Agreement
on level of detail and timing, and the delineation of planning
4
2-32
-------
areas discussed above, each agency having responsibility to carry
out an element of the work plan within a given planning area should
be so designated. Consistent with the alternatives for planning
area delineation, planning responsibilities may be delineated on an
area basis (example: all of the approved planning area or basin)
or on a category or problem basis (example: municipal facilities,
or a given nonpoint source category within an approved planning
area). However, certain tasks such as the basic water quality
analysis are not easily divisible and should generally be carried
out by a single agency.
Whatever division of planning tasks is followed in a planning
area, the State remains responsible for the integration of these
activities and is responsible for ensuring that all the elements of
the planning are coordinated and consistent. The State is also
responsible for ensuring that public participation, intergovern-
mental input in the form of advisory group activities, and other
coordination functions are carried out in each planning area.
Because these coordination activities should be closely related to
the planning tasks, if the State has delegated the major planning
tasks to another agency, the State may also choose to delegate
its supervisory and coordination functions as a lead agency in the
approved planning area. This lead agency would then be responsible
to carry out the public participation program, the coordination
with advisory groups and interagency coordination activities. The
lead agency in the approved planning area could also undertake the
day to day supervision of the work plan for the area and the
updating of the work plan. It must be emphasized, nevertheless,
that any delegation of the State's functions in planning, including
supervisory and coordination functions, does not modify the res-
ponsibility of the State to ensure that the requirements of the
Act are carried out.
As indicated below, work plans should be drawn up for each
approved planning area. Within each planning area all the tasks
needed for completing the State WQM Plan should be assigned to a
specific agency, and the subarea in which the tasks are to be
carried out should be delineated. The lead agency in the approved
planning area having supervisory and coordination responsibilities
should also be designated. The lead agency should be assigned the
tasks of public participation, coordination with advisory groups
of local officials and interagency coordination.
. Consultation with Locally Elected Officials and Local
Organizations (S130.14(b))
The State should develop appropriate mechanisms for consulting
with locally elected officials and local organizations for purposes
of determining planning responsibilities. The public participation
2-33
-------
and intergovernmental cooperation procedures developed in the
continuing planning process (see Ch. 2.3.B) should be used for
consultation concerning delegation of planning responsibilities.
• Description of Delegated Planning Agency(s) (§130.14(c),(d))
In describing planning agencies which have been delegated to under-
take State WQM planning responsibilities, the agency's name, address,
name of director, planning responsibilities and geographic coverage,
and other pertinent information should be included as part of
the information furnished in the State/EPA Agreement. In
addition, the agency designated to undertake State WQM Plan
responsibilities should furnish information demonstrating its
interest and capability to undertake the planning responsibilities.
This information could consist of:
- citation of the agency's planning authority
- information on the agency's experience in related planning
- intergovernmental agreements to undertake planning
- policy statements or resolutions of affected governments
- information on the availability of budget and staff to
undertake planning
- any other information that the State might regard as
necessary to indicate willingness to undertake planning
• Nonpoint Source Planning Responsibilities
In the State/EPA Agreement that is initially submitted, the
State should explicitly make its intentions known regarding
nonpoint source planning and regulatory responsibilities in
areas where 208 planning agencies have been designated or where the
State intends to designate such areas. If the State intends to
undertake nonpoint source planning and regulatory activities in
areas already designated for 208 planning it should notify the
responsible agencies in writing and also so notify the EPA
Regional Administrator. The State should request the EPA Region-
al Administrator to appropriately modify the areawide planning
project work plan. The State should indicate its concurrence
with any areawide planning project work plans when it develops
the State/EPA Agreement.
. Additional Delegation to Planning Agencies (S130.14(e))
Additional planning agency delegations may be made through the
continuing planning process revision procedure.
2-34
-------
4. State/EPA Agreement for each Approved Planning Area (S130.11(a))
The State/EPA agreement on level of detail and timing of State
WQM Plan preparation is, in effect, a work program for the State
WQM planning effort. An agreement should be drawn up for each
approved planning area*, indicating the following information:
- boundary of planning area and subareas where specific forms
of planning may be needed, (same as chosen pursuant to
S130.10(c)(2))
- level of detail of plan elements or outputs
- planning tasks to be accomplished to produce the elements of
a State WQM Plan
- logical relationships and interdependences between tasks
- planning agency responsible and timing of e.ach task
- lead planning agency responsible for coordinating planning
within the planning area.
The level of detail of planning will depend on the types of
problems encountered in the planning area and priorities for resolving
these problems. Further guidance on determining level of detail of
the elements of a State WQM Plan is contained in Ch. 3.
. Certification that no Water Quality or Source Control Problem
Exists (S130.11(b)J
As indicated above, the entire State should be divided into
planning areas within which subareas having particular problems
may be delineated for particular forms of planning. In the event
that a particular water quality parameter for which a numerical
standard exists is not being exceeded, or that particular types
of pollution sources or activities do not exist (and will not
exist over the 20 year planning period), the State may certify
that planning for these water quality problems and/or sources is
not necessary. These certifications must be made for each
planning area where the water quality problems do not exist and
must indicate:
Proposed or approved work plans in designated planning areas may be used to
satisfy the requirement for a State/EPA Agreement if the State so chooses.
2-35
-------
- the water quality parameter(s) not being exceeded
- activities or sources of pollution which do not require
planning consideration
- geographic extent (if appropriate) of areas where problems
do not exist, related to approved planning areas
- documentation supporting the certification (for example:
water quality data, population and employment projections,
hydrologic or geologic information)
The certifications should be submitted as part of the State/EPA
Agreement, which is to be submitted 150 days after the effective
date of the Part 130 regulation.
• Phasing of Planning (8130.11(c))
The Agreement must provide a sequence for phasing of §131 plan
preparation for completion by November 1, 1978 at the appropriate
level of detail and in sufficient time to meet the 1983 national
water quality goal specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act. The
level of detail of each plan element should be such that upon comple-
tion of the element implementation of needed control measures can
proceed expeditiously. However, as indicated in the guidance on State
WQM Plan development (Ch. 3.3) in some cases, where uncertainty exists
regarding the existence of a past water quality problem or where
implementation cannot be undertaken within the next five years, the
level of detail of plan elements may consist of an assessment of
control needs.
The following important dates should be kept in mind:
- November 28, 1975 -- final Parts 130, 131 promulgation
- January 27, 1976 — Identification of areas eligible for
designation under Section 208(a)(2)-(4)
- April 26, 1976 -- Continuing planning process revisions
to be submitted by State to Regional
Administrator
- April 26, 1976 -- Complete documentation of areawide
planning area designations to be sub-
mitted to Regional Administrator
- May 26, 1976 -- Regional Administrator to approve/
conditionally approve/disapprove
continuing planning process
- July 1, 1976 -- Phase I Water Quality Management Plans
due where extensions have been granted
2-36
-------
- September 1976 -- Biennual Report to Congress on Municipal
& September 1978 Needs
- July 1977 -- Recommended revisions of water quality
standards due
- December 1977 -- Second round of NPDES permits
- November 1, 1978 -- State WQM Plans due for final submission
to Regional Administrator
- March 1, 1979 -- Regional Administrator to approve/
conditionally approve/disapprove State
WQM Plan and Implementation Program
Within a given planning area the State/EPA Agreement should
provide appropriate timing of the various elements of a State WQM Plan
As the above schedule indicates, the planning period for preparation
of the State WQM Plan is somewhat more than 2 years (between finaliz-
ing the State/EPA Agreement and submission of plans).
E. Review/Revision of Water Quality Standards and Definition of
Antidegradation Policy
EPA policy on the review and revision of water quality standards is
stated in S130.17. Detailed guidance interpreting how to meet the require-
ments of §130.17 is contained in Ch. 5. The following is an overview of
the steps that the State would need to follow to carry out the policy
expressed in §130.17:
1. Develop Standards Revision Policy §130.10(b)(1), (2)
Recommendation for revision of standards are needed for two general
situations: first, to adequately protect existing instream beneficial
uses (including high quality waters for which existing standards are
not stringent enough) and second, to propose upgrading of existing
designated use classifications in order to achieve the 1983 goals.
In either of these situations, the recommended standards should
include the following basic characteristics:
. Appropriate beneficial uses should be indicated and categorized
Beneficial uses would include public water supply, propagation of
fish, shellfish and wildlife, recreation, agricultural water supply,
2-37
-------
industrial water supply, and other uses of water including
navigation. The currently designated uses must be maintained
with limited exceptions. The existing water quality supporting
these beneficial uses would have to be maintained, protected, or
improved. These uses should be consistent with the general welfare
and must provide for protection of public health. Thus water uses
that only benfit particular users should not be chosen unless these
uses do not preclude uses sought by the general public.
. Adequate criteria to support the uses should be included
Both narrative and numerical criteria should be specified at
a level needed to protect the beneficial uses. The criteria
should cover those pollutant substances that represent
serious existing or potential problems in a water body and \
that would require limitation in order to protect beneficial
uses. The values chosen for numerical criteria should be consis-
tent with those recommended in the EPA Document Quality Criteria
for Water, to be published pursuant to Section 304(a) of the Act.
. Anti-degradation Policy should be established and Implemented
The State should determine how existing high quality waters
will be protected through implementation of appropriate point
and nonpoint source controls to be specified in the State WQM
Plan. If the State chooses to allow some deterioration of
existing water quality (where existing waters are at a level
above that necessary to provide minimum protection of beneficial
uses), it must meet the procedural requirements indicated in
Part §130.17(e) as well as the substantive requirements of other
Federal law protecting existing water uses on Federal lands*
The specific beneficial uses and necessary criteria to protect
these beneficial uses should be indicated for waters to be
covered by the State's anti-degradation policy and implementa-
tion program.
Other Federal laws that may protect existing instream water quality
include, but are not limited to:
(i) The Endangered Species Act
(ii) The Marine Mammal Act
(iii) The Wilderness Act
(iv) The Coastal Zone Management Act
(v) The Safe Drinking Water Act
(vi) The National Historic Preservation Act
(vii) The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
(viii) The organic acts and executive orders creating
Federal land managing agencies.
2-38
-------
. Other technical and procedural requirements
In addition to the basic characteristic described above, the
recommendation for standards revision should conform with the
detailed technical and procedural guidance on standards revision
contained in Chapter 5.
2. Determine Relationship Between Standards Revision Process
and State WQM Plan Developme'nT
In order to carry out water quality analysis and develop imple-
mentation measures, it is necessary to have a clear set of planning
objectives. The State water quality standards as revised (or proposed)
consistent with §130.17 will provide the primary set of planning goals.
In revising standards it is also important to understand the impli-
cations of a particular policy in terms of the implementing actions
required. Because standards revision and plan development are two
interdependent processes that should be carried out in the same time
frame, it is necessary to make some simplifying assumptions in order
to initiate each process without depending entirely on the results of
the other process. Once standards policies have been proposed and
implementing actions for these general policies evaluated, it is
possible to further refine both the standards policies and implement-
ing actions.
The planning process can make recommendations for revisions to State
water quality standards where necessary. The States are not required to
adopt these recommendations. If they are rejected, the plan must then be
modified to be consistent with the established State water quality stand-
ards. Table 2.2 outlines the general procedures for carrying out both
the standards revision and plan development process.
3. Determine Schedule for Standards Revision (S130.10(c)(5))
The continuing planning process submission should include a schedule
for carrying out the standards revision process described above. The
schedule should indicate the following milestones:
- Timing for State transmittal of recommended standards revision
policy consistent with §130.17 to planning agency(s) developing
State WQM Plan
- Timing of planning agency(s) evaluation of proposed or adopted
standards revision
- Timing of public hearings on proposed or adopted standards revision
- Timing for State formal adoption revisions to proposed standards
recommended by the planning process.
In general the State should attempt to develop a standards revision
policy consistent with §130.17 as soon as possible, in order to provide
planning objectives to agency(s) developing the State WQM Plan. Sufficient
time should be alloted for the State to conduct the procedures required
under State law for standards revision. Adopted revisions of standards
must be submitted to the EPA Regional Administrator by July 1, 1977.
2-39
-------
Table I 2
uality Ji*,a_nJards and Hater
I. Standards Revis-,ui
II.
'pocess
A. Development of irnU1
Standards Policy iu
Retain Existing u\-
nated Beneficial !> e
and Protect uii . i.,'j
Instream BerPtic. H. i
Uses at 1983 'Via >
Levels CoiiMS(>'M i
40 CFR 130. 1/
1 .
Z.
3.
Determine wheuwi
present u3e class
fications arc
appropnu't. tu
retain exu.Hn'i
designate ' W:no
ficial us>;s arid
protect. e • .
fedsibility of
upgrading use <-
class ification
Develop alter-
native plans
to achieve
the proposed
or adopted
standards
Determine
environmental,
social and
economic im-
pact of proposed
alternatives
•to achieve
the proposed
or adopted
standards
If a state re-
jects the plan
recommendations,
then the plan
must be modi-
fled to conform
to established
standard policy
4'
Complete formal
plan adoption
process
-------
F. Preparation of State Water Quality Management Programs
The continuing planning process stages described above are primarily
organizational and management stages. The State WQM Plans on the other
hand is the vehicle for determining the actions to be taken to meet
water quality goals.
1. Requirements for Preparation of State WQM Plans (S130.10(a)(4), (5))
The continuing planning process submission should indicate how the
State intends to complete the requirements for State WQM Plans, including
standards revision and antidegradation policy. The State/EPA Agreement
should serve as the basis for indicating the State's approach for meet-
ing the State WQM Plans requirements. Guidance on meeting these
requirements is presented in the chapters that follow.
2. Review and Certification of Plans for Areawide Planning Areas
Procedures for review and certification of areawide plans pursuant
to S131.20Cf) is discussed in Ch. 3.10.
3. Designation of Management Agencies (§130.15)
• Timing of Designations (§130.15(a))
The requirement that the continuing planning process identify
management agencies (§130.15) should be fulfilled when specific
elements of the State WQM Plan have been developed and proposed
for implementation. Agencies to implement elements of the State
WQM Plan should be indicated in completing elements (n) and (o)
of 40 CFR Part 131.11.
• Designation Prior to State WQM Plan Completion (§130.15(c))
The timing requirements for various elements of the State WQM
Plan have been discussed in Ch. 2.3.D. Management agencies should
be designated for each part of the State WQM Plan which can be
implemented as a discrete plan element. The designation should be
timed to coincide with the completion of the corresponding element.
A detailed discussion of the legal authority, financial capa-
bility, and managerial and institutional capabilities of operating
and implementing agencies is discussed in Chapters 9-11.
2-41
-------
Procedures for designating implementing and operating agencies
are discussed in Ch. 3.10 as part of the procedures for review/
approval of State WQM Plans.
G. Outputs: Description of State Continuing Planning
Process §130.10(a)-(cT
After each of the major steps in developing the continuing planning
process have been completed, a description of the overall process should
be prepared. The description should cover each of the process elements
required under §130.10(a)-(c).
1. Optimal Format for Continuing Planning Process Submission
For purposes of simplifying the description of these process ele-
ments, the continuing planning process submission might, where appro-
priate, describe the following characteristics of the process elements:
. Purpose -- purpose of element, including description of how the
element meets statutory requirements
. procedures -- procedures that the State will use to carry out
each element in the Continuing Planning Process
(including revision of the element)
. inputs/ -- inputs to the elements, outputs, and relationships
outputs of inputs and outputs to other elements
. timing -- timing of the element
. supporting documents -- any specific supporting information
required in Part 130
For example, taking the general requirement of the process des-
cription which calls for a description of public participation in
the Continuing Planning Process (S130.10(a)(l)), the State might
answer the following questions in developing this part of its process
description:
. purpose -- What is the purpose of public participation at
various stages of the process?
. procedures — How is an effective program of public participa-
tion structured with respect to the various
stages of planning? What forms or techniques of
public participation are used? What institutional
arrangements are used?
2-42
-------
. inputs/ -- In what manner is information gathered through
outputs public participation used as an input to decision
making? How is the public kept aware of the
results or outputs of decisions in the process:
. timing -- When do the various public participation activities
occur? How much time is given to the public to
respond to decisions made in the process?
. supporting documents -- Any additional documents needed to
describe the State's program for public
participation.
A completed continuing planning process description could thus be
organized around the characteristics of each element of the process
suggested by this format. A summary of the process description could
be displayed in a table such as the following (see Table 2.3). The
States should be encouraged to develop whatever outline for describing
their planning process that seems most appropriate. The significance
of the format suggested above and the format for a summary of the
process description is that the State should attempt to develop a very
simple reference document which would serve as an index for anyone
interested in the State's water program to understand the way in which
the program was managed, its program elements, their relationships,
timing, and interaction with other activities.
H. Planning Process Adoption and Approval Procedures
1. Planning Process Adoption (S130.40(a))
All States will be required to revise parts of their continuing
planning process in order to incorporate substantive changes in the
processes such as the State/EPA Agreement on carrying out State WQM
Plans. All States will also need to reformulate their continuing
planning process in order to comply with the revised requirements of
40 CFR Part 130. Submission of the Continuing Planning Process
description or elements of the process requiring revision is required
150 days after the effective date of 40 CFR Parts 130/131 regulations.
In order to meet this time schedule, the planning process description
should be formally adopted by the State after appropriate public
participation before the 150 day period expires.
Formal adoption of the process entails certification by the
State agency having authority over water quality planning and imple-
mentation, that the process will be followed as the management and
decision making framework for all activities of that agency.
2-43
-------
Table 2.3 Optional Format for Summary of
nescTiption of State Continuing Planning Process
Elements of Process
A. Process Design
1. State Agency Responsible for
Coordinating Continuing Planning
Process and State WQM Plans
2. Statement of Planning Authority
3. Preliminary Description of
Process Requirements
4. Review and Revision Procedures
Requirements
of Part 130
S130.10
(0(11)
-
S130.43
Description of
Flpment
B. Process Inputs
1. Public Participation
2. Intergovernmental Cooperation
and Coordination
3. Program Coordination
a. Water Program Relationships
b. Coordination with other Local,
State, and Federal Programs
S130.10
(a)(2),(O(10)
fc. Preparation of Annual State
1 Strategy
D. State/EPA Agreement (including
Delineation of Planning Areas and
Planning Responsibilities)
1. Segment Classification; Listing of
Basins or Approved Planning Areas
and Segments
2. Designation of Areawide Planning
Areas and Agencies
3. Delegation of Planning Responsi-
bilities
4. Annual Preparation/Revision of
Agreement
E. Review/Revision of Water Quality
Standards and Definition of
Antidegradation Policy
S130.10
I
§130.10
.(0(7)
(0(7)
!c)(9)
(0(4)
S130.10
(b)(l)
(0(5)
F. Preparation of State Water Quality
Management Plans
1. Requirements for State WQM
Preparation
2. Review and Certification of Plans
for Areawide Planning Areas
3. Designation of Management Agencies
to Imolement Plans
8130.10
(b)(3)
81 30. 15
y
G. Outputs: Description of
State Continuing Planning Process
(see above)
H. Planning Process Adoption and Approval
Procedures
1. Planning Process Adoption
2. Submission
3. Review and Approval
S130.40
S130.40 .
5130.41-42
2-44
-------
2. Submission (S130.40(b), (c))
After the State water quality agency has ado;»i.pd th° description
of the planning process, the Governor or his d«sUy other format
3. Review and Approval (§130.41)
The Regional Administrator is required Ni .
approve, or disapprove the planning process u
submission by the Governor.
• Full Approval
i i n
conditionally
days of its
The Regional Administrator is required tr< ,;.pnv oye a planning
process description (and so notify the Gove^mi by letter) if
the process meets the requirements of th^ ]ir>e. If the
a schedule for
>ti-ncation to
The Regional Administrator may disappvjc^e f.ho entire process
if it is found grossly deficient and doec '"•,>(' t °
strate a coherent management approach to icnpi*-^
elements of a State WOI^1 Plan by the st^'u1 ,r c?^
process is disapproved, speci Fi: der.'"1?!.' "•<
resubmission should be set out in 1 h^ i'^ ;-,: --'• •
the Governor.
. Withdrawal of Approval (§130.42)
Any plans developed under the process that
requirements of 40 CFR Part 131 should be view<••••*
•jot meet the
;->y the Regional
2-45
-------
Administrator as indication of a possible deficiency in the
management approach (e.g., the continuing planning process) used
by the State to develop State WQM Plans.
If the Regional Administrator finds deficiencies in State WQM
Plans or portions of the plans, he should initiate an inquiry
into the cause of the deficiency and ascertain which elements of
the continuing planning process were not carried out as planned,
and what changes might be needed to make the process operate more
efficiently.
After conducting an investigation of the causes of State WQM
Plan deficiency and the relationship of such deficiencies to the
State's continuing planning process, the Regional Administrator
may disapprove the continuing planning process by formally notify-
ing the Governor of the affected State, and indicating the specific
remedy for correcting the inadequacy of the process and a schedule
for corrective action.
4. Review and Revision (SI30.43)
The State's procedure for review and revision of its continuing
planning process should be specified in its continuing planning
process description as suggested in Ch. 2.3.A.
2-46
-------
CHAPTER 3
State Water Quality
Management Plan Development
3.1 Scope and Purpose
State and areawide WQM Plans are required in all areas of each State.
The purpose of these plans is to develop a management program to implement
requirements for water quality standards establishment and revision (S303(c))}
identification of areas where effluent limitations are not sufficient to
meet standards and establishment of total maximum daily loads of pollutants
((S303(d)), implementation of water quality standards (§303(e)), and to carry
out the planning and management requirements of S208 statewide.
3.2 Program Objectives
A. Principal Objective
The overall objective of the Act is to "restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters"
(Section 101(a)). To achieve this objective, "it is the national
goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality
which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish,
and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be
achieved by July 1, 1983" (Section 101(a)(2)). To enable meeting
the Act's objectives, "it is the national policy that areawide waste
treatment management planning processes be developed and implemented
to assure adequate control of sources of pollutants in each State"
(Section 101(a)(5)).
Thus the objective of the State WQM Plan is to define water
quality standards to implement the goals of the Act, determine
allowable standards pursuant to Section 303, to develop
plans for pollution abatement as required in Section 208(b)(2),
and finally to select management agency(s) to implement the plan
as specified in Section 208(c)(2).
B. Complementary Objectives
To complement the water quality goals of Section 101(a)(2), provisions
of Title II of the Act provide for additional aspects of water quality
protection such as:
- Water conservation and resource utilization through wastewater
reuse or recycling;
3-1
-------
- Management of residual waste;
- Multiple use of wastewater treatment systems and associated
lands for such purposes as water supply, recreation, aesthetics,
and fish and wildlife habitats;
- Protection of ground water quality.
Any other water-related goals of the planning area, such as provision
of adequate water supply and programs for land or water resource manage-
ment should be identified for consideration in development of the plans.
These related goals should be recognized in the planning process and
should be incorporated into the plan to the extent that their achieve-
ment would not reduce the cost-effectiveness of the water quality
management measures.
Finally, the results of the planning process should be coordinated
with other plans for the area, such as those discussed in Ch. 2.
3.3 Program Content
A. Major Program Components and Requirement Elements
The required elements of State WQM Plans provide the basis for
a continuing planning and management program for water pollution
abatement. These elements form two major components for a
water quality planning and management program: analysis and
action. The analytic component of the program incorporates the follow-
ing elements:
• Water Quality Analysis Program
- Planning Boundaries;
- Water Quality Assessments (including nonpoint source assessment)
and Segment Classifications;
- Inventories and Projections of Discharges;
- Revision of Standards;
- Total Maximum Daily Loads;
- Wasteload Allocations.
3-2
-------
The implementation component of the program includes the following
elements:
• Water Quality Implementation Program
- Municipal and Industrial Treatment Works Program;
- Urban Stormwater Management Program;
- Residual Waste Management Program;
- Nonpoint Source Management Program;
- Target Abatement Dates and Schedules of Compliance;
- Regulatory Program;
- Management Program -- Management Agency(s) and Institutional
Arrangements to Supervise and Finance Plan Implementation.
In addition to these program components, the State WQM Plan is required
to include an environmental assessment, covering both the analytic
and implementation aspects of the plan.
B. Planning Responsibilities
The State is responsible for developing the total State WQM Plan. The
State may, however, designate 208 planning agencies to carry out some
or all of the Water Quality Implementation Program elements and provide
much of the analysis needed by the State to finalize the Water Quality
Analysis Program. In areas which are not designated for 208 planning,
the entire State WQM Plan for that area is to be completed by the State.
Nevertheless, the State may delegate (if these agencies agree) portions
of the planning to substate or Federal agencies. In the State/EPA
Agreement for each area, the State must identify the agency responsible
for each of these planning elements.
C. Level of Detail of Plan Elements
The regulation is very specific in describing many of the plan
elements. In other cases, the regulation has been written to provide
latitude for interpreting these elements. To provide a common interpreta-
tion for these elements, criteria should be applied to determine that the
requirements are met. A summary of the criteria for meeting the require-
ments of the regulation is found in Table 3.1 (p. 3 -56ff). These
criteria provide "tests" regarding the level of detail, factors to be
considered, and overall justification used in meeting each requirement
of the regulation. The "tests" should not be viewed as a substitute for
the requirements of the regulation itself, but as a means for interpret-
ing how to meet the requirements.
In general, the criteria for meeting the requirements of the regula-
tion indicate that each element of the plan be developed in sufficient
detail to enable implementation of that element. However, there may
3-3
-------
a valid reason for not proceeding immediately to develop a particular
element of the plan at the level of detail indicated in Table 3.1,,
Where it is not clearly understood that a particular water quality
problem exists, or where it is not expected that a control project can
be undertaken to correct a problem in the next five years, the Water
Quality Implementation Program — elements (h) - (o) (see Table 3,,1) of the
plan can be developed in less detail than stated in Table 3.1. In all cases,
the Water Quality Analysis Program — elements (a) - (g) should be
developed at the level of detail indicated in Table 3.1, since these
elements provide the basis for developing the implementation measures.
The level of detail of the environmental assessment will naturally
be dependent on the level of detail of the implementation program.
In cases in which elements (h) - (o) are not developed at the
level of detail indicated in Table 3.1, an assessment of possible control
measures, regulatory programs, and financial and management arrangements
corresponding to that element should be undertaken. The decision on
where the required elements can be completed at the level of detail
suggested in Table 3.1 must be included in the State/EPA Agreement.
Table 3.2 indicates the level of detail to which elements (h) - (o)
should be developed where an assessment is sufficient.
D. Planning Methods
Because water quality problems and priorities in managing these
problems will vary in different areas of the State, the elements of
the State WQM Plan that deal with abatement of different sources of
pollution ((h) - (m) in Table 3.1) may be developed through different
methods of analysis depending on the magnitude of the problem.
Depending on the method of analysis used to develop these elements,
greater or lesser complexity will arise in assessing how to implement
the abatement measures (elements (n) - (o) and selecting among alternatives
(element (p)).
In complex urban-industrial areas, the requirements of Section 208
and 303 should be developed through a planning process that considers
the interaction of all sources of pollution and management approaches
for abatement of these sources. The EPA Guidelines for Areawide Waste
Treatment Management (August 1975) should be followed in areas where
208 planning has already been initiated pursuant to 40 CFR Part 35
Interim Grant Regulations.
The guidance presented in this document recommends alternative
planning methods depending on the nature of pollution problems. For
complex problem areas these guidelines recommend a planning approach
which is conceptually the same as that recommended in the Guidelines
for Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning.
3-4
-------
TABLE 3.2
Assessment for
Water Quality Implementation Program
Category of Plan Elements*
• abatement measure elements
(e.g., element (h), (i),
(j). (k), (1), (m))
Level of Detail of Assessment
• description of existing abatement
measures and their adequacy and
effectiveness
• procedure to develop specifications
for needed abatement measures, and
proposed date of development of such
specifications and abatement measures
• regulatory programs elements
(e.g., element (n))
• description and evaluation of
existing regulatory programs and
an indication of whether authority
exists to implement needed abate-
ment measures
• procedures and timing for develop-
ing needed regulatory programs
t management agency and
financial arrangement
elements (e.g.,
element (o))
• indication of agency(s) having
jurisdiction to deal with problem
• generalized cost estimate for
correcting problem
• procedure and timing for identify-
ing needed management agency(s)
and financial arrangement to
implement abatement measures
*These elements are found in Table 3.1 The elements can be conveniently
arranged into the categories shown above, each of which would be
needed in developing an effective implementation program for any form of
pollution. No distinction in level of detail of the analytic requirements
(Elements (a) - (g) in Table 3.1) should be made.
3-5
-------
3.4 Planning Criteria
The State WQM Plans will be evaluated by States and EPA in terms of
their ability to achieve the planning objectives in a given area. The
Act also provides certain criteria for choosing among the means for
achieving these objectives.
The following criteria should be used in the planning process, in
plan selection, and will be applied by the States and EPA in plan review
and approval:
A. Cost-Effectiveness
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act specifies cost-effectiveness
as the criteria for the planning and development of wastewater manage-
ment programs, in particular as those programs relate to municipal
treatment works and controls of combined sewer overflows and storm
sewer discharges.
EPA has defined cost-effectiveness analysis as a systematic
comparison of alternatives to identify the solution which minimizes
total costs to society over time to reliably meet given goals and
objectives. Since Section 208(b)(2)(e) specifies that the plan
should document the economic, social, and environmental impact of
plan implementation, the local economic impact (in addition to resource
costs) must be included in the total costs to society. Thus the
total costs to society to be minimized should include:
- resource costs;
- economic costs;
- social costs;
- environmental costs;
In the case of State WQM Plans, effectiveness refers to
meeting the 1983 goals of the Act while providing for the highest
practical degree of technical reliability in the pollution control
alternative that is chosen.
B. Implementation Feasibility
Explicit criteria for determining adequacy of the management
provisions for carrying out waste treatment management are not
provided in the Act. This guideline sets forth the following cri-
teria, further elaborated in Ch. 9, for evaluating implementation
feasibility of the management provisions of a plan:
3-6
-------
- adequate legal authority;
- adequate financial capacity;
- practicability;
- managerial capacity;
- public accountability.
C. Public Acceptance
Since the success of a State WQM Plan depends on its acceptance
by affected units of government, the acceptability of the plan to
the general public and elected officials in a planning area should
also be regarded as a basic planning criterion. The application
of this criterion in the planning process is further discussed in
Ch. 4.
3.5 Planning Sequence
A. Purpose
The purpose of the planning process is to systematically evaluate
alternative means of achieving water quality goals and to formulate a
plan that can be implemented by a management agency. The planning
process should integrate technical needs for pollution abatement and
management arrangements capable of implementing the abatement measures,
and provide for public participation in plan development.
In order to develop each of the components of a State WQM Plan --
(1) Water Quality Analysis Program, and(2) Water Quality Implementa-
tion Program -- two forms of planning are necessary: technical
analysis and management/institutional analysis. The planning process
can thus be divided into technical and management planning, each of
which is concerned with analysis and action, but which normally rely
on different sets of planning expertise.
The technical planning portion of the planning process involves
identifying the priority water quality problems of the area, recog-
nizing any constraints in dealing with the problems, and developing
alternatives to achieve water quality goals. The alternative plans
may then be evaluated according to the planning criteria discussed
in this chapter.
3-7
-------
Management planning, which concerns selection of a management
agency or agencies and development of appropriate institutional
arrangements for plan implementation, should be conducted con-
currently and in coordination with technical planning. Management
planning should identify water quality management problems, and
analyze the capability of existing agencies and arrangements to
carry out the regulatory and management requirements of Section 208.
Institutional problems, lack of authority, or lack of financial
capacity for meeting Section 208 requirements should be identified.
Alternative means to acquire proper authority, financial capacity, and
effective institutional arrangements for plan implementation should be
developed. Finally, alternative management agency(s) and institutional
arrangements should be evaluated and a single alternative selected according
to criteria discussed in this chapter.
Developing alternative technical and management plans and selection of
a State WQM Plan require public participation throughout the planning
process. Public participation requirements and means for ensuring
•adequate participation at each stage in the planning process are discussed
in Ch. 4.
B. Planning Flow Chart
Table 3.3 is a flow chart depicting a series of steps to develop
a State WQM Plan. Some of the steps are needed to complete required
plan elements* and are so denoted in the text accompanying the chart.
The chart also includes many optional planning steps which may prove
helpful in developing a coherent plan to meet the requirements.
Table 3.1 includes criteria or "tests" for determining the factors
and information to be considered and overall justification used in
meeting each requirement of the regulation. The guidance presented
in this chapter on each plan element is related to the criteria found
in Table 3.1. Both the criteria and guidance sections follow the
outline of the regulation except where noted otherwise.
3.6 Technical Planning
A. Purpose
The purpose of technical planning is to develop a coordinated
water quality management strategy to meet 1983 water quality goals.
The strategy may be a combination of: (1) municipal wastewater
treatment systems, (2) industrial wastewater pretreatment or
treatment, (3) residual waste management, (4) urban stormwater
management, and (5) nonpoint source management. Implementation
*uenoted in the accompanying text as Element (a), (b), (c), etc.,
corresponding to 40 CFR Part 131.11 (a) - (o).
3-8
-------
X
u
l-<
(Q
!•«:->
C
14
m 5
£ 6
g
i v
1 *J
1 l-l
i <
(0 > 41
!g-d»3
I -H (4 C U
i w C » rt
I Q. M rH G
! O V fr H
« CU -H 0>
•H *J 0
(X
I
: u
' c
V tUjr-t 00 WK At
? d > C o *j u P
(0 -H
ett
rt
at «
u o.
"•§
I s
J X
y ^
i-i«
o u
h M
u 3 •
C o
0«
tM •
« o
-H >.
tJ W
jr « o
y c M
q) I-i at
o at u •
u *•* <8
O.r-1 U
5'. o ca
^ »-i u
a? „
0) OJ O
U 0
•S
I
oo d
« -H
•O 13
0) 01
h. t.
C -H
•H p
*J CT
455
5 o. «
•a a)
13
-s-
o
o
•H
4) (0
> *J
u S
RJ M X
O O -tJ *J
M >M ff C
a. ^ «
o.f> rt e
< -H 3 .
§o 0
-. C *'
*w a> a
no ai
•< a
3-9
-------
M li
o fa
*M -0
ai - a
n u u a
dec
O Q 41 G
0) -4 S Q 0
-O « ti W -H
3 -H 0 M M
U O M « >
C H Of « V
w
'
•o
•*
i-l *M
•H O QB
« ° 3
•J C rJ
« o =>
Q i-4 4J
W (9
O. D. «
O -r4 fe
rH b
S3§
Q> 0) rH
o a fa
o
*
01
0) S»
C -H *w
10 *J -H
i-t 0]
r- V >
> 4J -H
j-» a <; a
n *o a>
v •-« u
>*-( i— t ro
1 gMB.>
o a) • *
O CO rH CS
O
s
•0 *w
0) (0
C V-i rH
d V -H
4J *j qj
•H ^i CJ O* 3C
(X V
e *j
CQ
S9
•S
^
^
§
^ -a
fa rH 01
CO 4J
rM *J O
A CO
C « r-t
-H £ OJ
fri C CO
o
12 1°
^ c w c
^ o v
l»»
5 '
0)
u
V4
T^ U tH
r-4 OJ «
•H •*-< c
u H a u M
1*""""
X
/
OUTPUTS
X
5
u
r«* •
^t n
jO
. S
3 I
•-I M
1 s
T) e
u c • o
« « B u iH vt «
*J O C » *» -O
a u -H 01 > « *l
U V « « -H fl K »
P B 00 => U, w 3 S 0
a. a> BO* o c cr 6 a>
4J P-* -H it Tt
p U d K CO^rHW
o ca* uoiaifoc
•O * *J > c *j *J -H d
S ai rHtttrHeoaood
-H ^ fc3UMZ3HCUZ
0> 3
< 00
M
4J
*
«
«r<
«J
«
4J
S
W
5
a
rH
MM
(M
«
e
>
« 0 5
0}
C
^
0>
i-H
<:
«
c
1
o
-<
4^
*J
?
ID
T3
M
<0
•o
c
4
*J
«
U
•H
*J
CJ
C
0)
f-l
rH
cd
U
wl
C
&
u
fl
o
AJ
60
5
•0
B
O
fr
U
S
O
9
rH
fa
T_E
3-10
-------
of these abatement measures is to be achieved through regulatory
measures such as local ordinances and state legislation, capital
construction of wastewater treatment facilities and through improved
management of stormwater systems.
Since technical planning will be shaped by the particular
problems of an area, the planning procedures in this guideline are
offered primarily as an organizational framework for planning.
Emphasis accorded each part of the framework will be largely a
matter of planning judgment. In developing a water planning
management strategy, however, particular attention should be paid
to pollution controls other than traditional, capital intensive
structural methods.
The technical planning process should be designed so as to
place the greatest emphasis on water quality problems that are
solvable with existing technology and sources of funding. The water
quality problems that should receive the greatest priority
initially are municipal and industrial point source problems,
and nonpoint source problems that can be dealt with through
better management practices and future stormwater systems that
can be better designed. Lower priority should be placed on non-
point source and stormwater problems that require large capital
investments for their solution. For each type of water quality
problem, however, priority attention should be placed on
regulatory approaches which will help prevent problems from
occurring and thereby lessen the need for remedial pollution
abatement.
B. Inputs
1. Information from 303(e) Basin Plans and Facilities Plans
Available information from Phase I 303(e) basin plans and
facilities plans provide the basic inputs for planning. Facilities
plans under Title II of the Act, or preceding facility plans under
18 CFR and Section 3(c) of the Water Quality Act of 1965, should be
coordinated with State WQM Plans as stated in Ch. 2.
2. Information from NPDES Permits
Information on discharges into navigable water available
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
should be consulted. Terms and conditions of any permits already
issued to dischargers should be accounted for in formulating pollu-
tion control strategies for the second round of permits.
3-11
-------
3. Related Hater Management Information
Much of the information necessary for developing an effective
State WQM Plan may be available from related water management
programs and studies. Those which may be especially useful include:
- Basin Studies under the Water Resources Planning Act;
- Urban Studies of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers;
- Flood Plain Information Studies of the U. S. Geological
Survey and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers;
- State and Local Water Supply Studies and Data.
4. Goals Other than Water Quality
While the State WQM Plan is concerned with water quality, selection
of the final plan may affect other community goals. It is therefore
important to establish an understanding of community goals and plans,
especially with respect to housing, economic development, transporta-
tion, education, recreation, other environmental goals, etc. The
relationship between these goals and water quality and other environ-
mental goals should be understood from the outset of the planning
process. Public participation in the planning process is an effective
way of defining the relationship between community goals.
5. Technical Information
A bibliography of technical studies related to the various parts
of this guideline is provided at the end of this document.
C. Conduct Hater Quality Analysis
1. Establish Planning Boundaries - Element (a)
Ch. 2 provides guidance on initial selection of planning areas.
Adjustments to initial planning boundaries may be desirable in
order to encompass areas having particular water quality problems
or in order to be coordinated with other planning activities in an
area. However, modification of planning boundaries necessitates
change in the State/EPA Agreement.
3-12
-------
2. Specify Water Quality Standards and Antidegradation Policy -
Element (e)
a. Overview of Standards Revision Process
Recommendation for revision of standards is needed for two
general situations: first, to adequately protect existing
beneficial uses (including high quality waters for which exist-
ing standards are not stringent enough), and second, to propose
upgrading of existing use classifications in order to achieve
the 1983 goal in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act, wherever attainable.
In either of these situations, the recommended standards should
include the following basic characteristics:
1) Appropriate Beneficial Uses Should Be Indicated and Categorized:
Beneficial uses would include water supply, propagation of
fish, shellfish and wildlife, recreation, agricultural,
industrial, and other uses of water including navigation.
The existing water quality supporting these beneficial uses
would have to be maintained, protected, or improved. These
uses should be consistent with overall public health and the
general welfare as opposed to particular needs for water use
which might preclude enjoyment of other uses sought by the
public in general.
2) Adequate Criteria To Support the Uses Should Be Included
in the Standards':
Both narrative and numerical criteria should be specified
at a level needed to protect the existing and proposed beneficial
uses. The criteria should cover as many pollutant substances
as are present or potentially present in a stream, and would
require limitation in order to protect beneficial uses. The
values chosen for numerical criteria should be consistent with
those recommended in the EPA document, Quality Criteria for Mater,
published pursuant to Section 304(a) of the Act.
3) Antidegradation Policy:
The State should determine how existing water quality will
be protected through implementation of appropriate point and
nonpoint source controls to be specified in the State
WQM Plan. If the State chooses to allow some deterioration
3-13
-------
of existing water quality, it must meet the requirements indicated
in Part 130.17 as well as the substantive requirements of Federal
law protecting existing water uses on Federal lands. The specific
beneficial uses and necessary criteria to protect these beneficial
uses should be indicated for waters to be covered by the State's
antidegradation policy and implementation program.
4) Other Technical and Procedural Requirements:
In addition to the basic characteristics described above, the
recommendation for standards revision and the development of an
antidegradation policy should conform with the detailed technical
and procedural guidance on standards revision contained in Ch. 5,
b. Relationship between Standards Revision Process and State WQM Plan
DevelopmeTTt
General procedures for carrying out both the standards revision
and plan development process are- presented in Ch. 2.3.E and Table 2.2.
The State is responsible for determining the schedule, interactions,
and planning responsibilities under these procedures in the State/EPA
Agreement. It is essential that the first three standards revision
steps described for both protecting existing beneficial uses and
upgrading uses be completed as expeditiously as possible in order to
provide planning targets for the State WQM Planning Process. It should
be possible to complete these basic steps without necessarily completing
all the technical conditions of the standards revision process.
In oreparing the proposed implementation plans for the standards
policy, information and analysis on the costs and impacts of the
standards policies should be developed. This information should enable
refining the choices to be made regarding the stringency of anti-
degradation policy and the feasibility of upgrading use classifications
in order to attain the 1983 goal.
3. Assess Water Quality Problems and Classify Segments - Elements (b), (d)
a. Purpose of Water Quality Assessment
Once the boundaries of a planning area have been established, a
water quality assessment should be performed to start the planning
cycle. As more information becomes available, the cycle should be
repeated annually and the assessment revised if necessary. Much of
the initial assessment may be done on a preliminary basis. The main
3-14
-------
purpose of the assessment 1s to act as a first step to begin the
area's Phase II Planning and also to act as a preliminary indication
of the type and extent of the planning which will be necessary.
The water quality assessment and segment classification will
provide inputs to all phases of the planning process in general,
and specific inputs to several elements of the State WQM Plan. The
assessment should provide the description of water quality called
for in Section 305(b) of the Act. The assessment should also
identify point and nonpoint source problem areas which should receive
detailed analyses and waste load allocations. It will further provide
inputs to the State Strategy and possible revisions to the State-EPA
Agreement on timing and level of detail (5130.11).
The assessment and classification process will be discussed in
the form of the following suggested steps to meet the requirement
of elements (b) and (d):
1) Obtain Water Quality Data
The assessment should be based on all existing water quality
data for the planning area. Sources for this information may
include EPA's STORET System, Phase I State WQM plans, the U. S.
Geological Survey, the Soil Conservation Needs Inventory, Bureau
of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and the U. S. Forest
Service. EPA has published a nonpoint source control users
handbook which provides additional information for nonpoint source
data. Water quality data should be broken down according to types
of receiving water.
Surface waters may be classified as free flowing streams, tidal
rivers, estuaries, coastal zones, lakes, and reservoirs. Ground-
water represents a separate category.
2) Compare Existing Water Quality to Phase II State Water Quality
Phase II State WQM Plans are to be based on meeting the 1983 goals
of the Act. These goals will be reflected in Phase II Water Quality
Standards. (See guidance on standards revision, element (e) in
Ch. 3.6.C.2.)
3-15
-------
Initial assessments may be conducted prior to revision and
adoption of these standards. In this case, water quality should
be compared to EPA's Quality Criteria for Water document prepared
pursuant to Section 304(a) of the Act.This document lists
criteria which describe various levels of quality for varying
uses and habitats. The appropriate criteria should be selected
on the basis of local conditions.
In comparing existing water quality data to water quality
standards, the need for additional information will undoubtedly
arise. This need may involve data for varying flow conditions
(dry weather, wet weather, ice cover, etc.), data for NFS related
criteria (sediment, nutrients, salinity, etc.), or simply additional
data to increase the reliability of decisions made for critical
areas. Requests for additional data should be prioritized and
transmitted to State monitoring program personnel (SI30.30). Based
on immediately available data, comparisons between existing water
quality and the levels of water quality needed to meet the 1983 goals
should be made wherever possible.
3) Identify Existing and Potential Mater Quality Problem Areas
Water quality problems must be identified. They should be. described
in terms of existing or potential violations of water quality stan-
dards. Approriate 304(a) criteria may be used in determining problem
areas. Potential problem areas should also be identified on the basis
of near violations during noncritical periods, trends in historical
water quality data, and areas of projected development or growth
(element (c)). The provisions of the State antidegradation policy
(element(e)) apply to all waters of the State, but existing and
potential problem areas should be identified for immediate action.
4) Specify Water Quality Standards Parameters which Are Violated
For each segment where water quality standards are violated, or
expected to be violated, the violated parameters (including thermal)
should be identified. The severity of the problem should be estimated
from the degree and frequency of violations and the loss of desired
beneficial uses.
5) Identify the Category of Sources which Contribute to Violations
Point sources contributing to any existing or potential water
quality standard violation should be identified as municipal or
industrial. Industrial sources should be further identified by
industrial category. Contributing nonpoint sources (including
upstream areas contributing to the build-up of the nonpoint source
problem) should be identified by category and sub-category where
3-16
-------
necessary. The categories should be consistent with those
identified in the State-EPA Agreement on timing and level of detail
(S130.ll). This step in the assessment process should provide
inputs to revisions of the agreement as new problems are identified
and others are found to be less severe than anticipated.
6) Identify Specific Sources Contributing to Violations
The assessment should identify specific point sources and limited
geographic areas or owner/operators for nonpoint sources which
contribute to existing or potential water quality standards violations.
The sources should be classified according to the flow condition
under which they occur:
- continuing or seasonal point source
(example: industrial source discharging continuously or on
a seasonal basis)
- intermittent point source
(example: storm and combined sewers discharge after rainfall)
- nonpoint source
(example: runoff from agriculture, silviculture, construction,
and mining)
Point source descriptions should be consistent with the source
inventory produced under element (c).
7) Determine Segments Requiring Effluent Controls More Stringent than
Base Levels
Some segments with existing or potential water quality standards
violations will require controls more stringent than BPWTT and BAT
to prevent water quality standards violations. On a preliminary
basis, these segments should be identified for further analysis and
classified as water quality segments. Analyses performed in connec-
tion with Phase I Plans should give good preliminary information, but
it should be emphasized that all water quality standards criteria
should be considered, including those related to nonpoint sources.
Subsequent analyses performed to determine maximum daily loads
(element (f)) may indicate that the segment is actually effluent
limited and that it should be reclassified.
3-17
-------
8) Determine Needs for Further Planning
At this stage in planning, the need for more detailed planning
should be determined based on the following distinctions:
- Those areas where it is expected that the effluent limitations
for point sources required by July 1, 1983 (BAT/BPWTT) will not
be sufficient to meet the 1983 water quality goals will require
detailed planning for both point and nonpoint sources. For
point sources, waste load allocations will be necessary—see
element (g). For nonpoint sources, a gross allotment for exist-
ing nonpoint source pollution loads will need to be established--
see element (f). Detailed planning and establishment of nonpoint
source control needs (element (j)) will also be necessary.
- All other areas will require application of the effluent limita-
tions for point sources required by July 1, 1983 (BAT/BPWTT).
Where the State has established a policy of antidegradation,
higher levels of abatement than BAT/BPWTT, as well as Best Manage-
ment Practices for new nonpoint sources may be required. However,
if the State certifies, pursuant to SI30.11, that no nonpoint source
problems will exist over the planning period, the requirement for
nonpoint source planning for new sources will not apply.
These determinations may result in a need to revise the State/EPA
Agreement (5130.11) regarding the phasing and level of detail of planning.
4. Estimate Existing/Projected Wasteloads - Element (c)
a. Municipal and Industrial Inventory
The inventories and projections should serve as a starting point
for consideration of point source dischargers ranking. They should be
of sufficient detail to allow decision makers and the public necessary
information on the relative loading, rankings, and restrictions on
sources. Inventories will also be utilized in the development of the
annual State Strategy. Therefore, it may be appropriate to include
sources with no loading, as in the case of non-overflow lagoons, in
order that the total scope of water pollution control efforts for
point sources may be realized.
In order to account for priorities between basins, States may choose
to display the municipal priority list for an entire State, identifying
those facilities within the priority area.
3-18
-------
b. Existing Land Use Patterns
Existing land use patterns should be categorized in such a way
as to be able to assign pollutant loadings to the categories of
land use. In the case of point sources of pollution, land use
categories should be based on type of activity (e.g., commercial,
industrial, residential). In the case of nonpoint sources, land
use categories may be based on types of activity and also on the
characteristics of the land on which the activity takes place (e.g.,
soil, slope, rainfall, cover, etc.), where appropriate, to aid in
predicting pollutant loading from different land uses.
The size units of land categorized for purposes of predicting
pollutant generation should vary depending on the degree to which
the land is developed and the complexity of the conditions under which
pollutants are generated. The size units recommended in the criteria
for carrying out requirements of element (c) are for purposes of
standardizing projections. Where the State or designated agency has a
different method for classifying land use and different data bases, these
may be used. Official planning agencies should be consulted in obtaining
land use information.
c. Demographic and Economic Projections
Estimates of the existing population, employment, and land use in
the basin should be assembled as a basis for assessing existing patterns
of the generation of pollutants, and as a basis for projecting the
amount and spatial distribution of future wasteloads. These projec-
tions should cover the next 20 years in five-year increments. Particular
emphasis should be placed on the effect that implementation of the State
WQM Plan, local growth policies, plans for attainment and maintenance
of air quality, and other regional plans for transportation, solid waste
management, water supply, or public investment may have on historical
trends of populations, employment, and land use.
Population data are available from the Bureau of Economic Analysis
(U. S. Department of Commerce). They should be updated with the most
recent demographic and economic projections developed by the Bureau
of Economic Research Service (U. S. Department of Agriculture), and
with projections used as a basis for State planning for air quality
management. In general, SERIES E projections developed by BEA, or
comparable projections developed by the State should be used as overall
growth projections for the planning area. The use of any projections
that deviate significantly from BEA should be justified. BEA projections
are available for States, BEA economic regions, Water Resource Council
Regions, and for Standard Metropolitan Areas, all of which generally
3-19
-------
include more than a single county. If it is necessary to dis-
aggregate BEA projections, the assumptions made in the disaggregation
process should be made explicit. Historical trends of county popula-
tion and employment data are available upon request from BEA.
d. Projected Land Use Patterns
Using the land use categories previously developed, and based
upon the previous demographic and economic projections, future land
use changes should be projected. The projections of land use plan-
ning agencies should be consulted in making these projections.
Assumptions concerning the allocation of future population and em-
ployment to areas undergoing development should reflect commercial,
residential, and industrial land use densities as established in
approved land use plans (if such plans exist).
e. Haste Load Projections
Based on existing data and projections of population and employment,
and factors of wasteload generation per unit of area or unit of activity,
existing wasteloads* should be estimated and future wasteloads pro-
jected for increments of five years, covering land areas and sources
such as residential, commercial, and industrial. At a minimum,
projections of municipal and industrial wasteloads must be made.
Wasteload factors should be based on existing wasteload data for
the area. Where it is necessary to project industrial loads, the
load factors for industrial activities may be based on existing
wasteload data for the area. Where it is necessary to project
industrial loads, the load factors for industrial activities may be
based on standard loading factors if specific forecasts cannot be
obtained from industries planning to locate in the area. From the
wasteload projections, as well as monitoring information, a materials
balance (for the planning area) for each significant pollutant should
be constructed to relate instream water quality to pollution genera-
tion and transport where possible.
*The wasteload factors used in the estimations should be specific
enough to aid in the development of alternative abatement measures.
For example, rather than relying on a single loading factor for
agriculture or mining activities, a series of loading factors that
are sensitive to variations in pollution generation should be
developed for various subcategories of these activities.
3-20
-------
While estimates of existing and projected nonpoint source wasteloads
are not required plan elements, it is recommended that estimates of
existing nonpoint source loading be developed. In the case of non-
point sources, a materials balance may be based on average factors
for wasteload generation per unit of area or unit of activity,
depending on the nature of the problem. (Refer to Ch. 7). Gener-
ally, it is not necessary to attempt to project future nonpoint
source loads, since the approach taken to nonpoint sources should be
to establish best management practices for new nonpoint source acti-
vities. An exception perhaps exists where complex decisions regarding
structural solutions (stormwater treatment, for example) are involved.
5. Estimate Maximum Allowable Load - Element (f)
In order to classify as water quality or effluent limited, it may
be necessary to estimate the level of pollutant loading that could
be allowed in the segment without violating water quality standards.
This level could then be compared with the existing and projected waste-
loads for the segment. However, the calculation of maximum allowable
daily loads may require extensive data collection, analysis, and model-
ing. The State is only required to establish maximum allowable loads
where it has classified the segment as water quality limited. However,
where doubt exists as to proper classification, it is recommended that
maximum allowable loads be established to make classifications more
definite.
a. Critical Conditions for Calculating Total Maximum Daily Loads
Critical or design conditions are those stream flow conditions which
serve as the basis for determining if water quality standards can be
met for each parameter. Stream flow conditions likely to present the
greatest stress to fish, shellfish, and aquatic wildlife in the par-
ticular area should be chosen as critical or design conditions.
Traditional stream analysis often makes use of a low flow-high
temperature design condition (e.g., once in 10-year, 7-day low flow).
This flow condition may be appropriate for a steady-state stream
analysis involving constant rates of point source pollutant discharge.
However, choice of design flow conditions for point source analysis
should take account of such factors as ice cover and seasonal point
source discharge which may cause more severe stress on life in the
stream than occurs at low flow.
3-21
-------
Wet weather flow conditions may be appropriate for analysis of
nonpoint and such intermittent point source discharges as storm
sewers. Such factors as intensity and duration of rainfall, time
since previous rainfall, pollutant accumulation rates (including
effect of cumulative build-up of pollutants on bottom life in
streams), and stream flow previous to rainfall should be considered
in selecting design conditions for nonpoint source analysis.
A range of flow, meterological, and seasonal conditions should
be considered in choosing design conditions. In general, for point *
sources, continuous discharges present the worst pollution under
low flow, dry weather conditions. For pollutants transported in
runoff, critical conditions will be rainfall-related, but may occur
under a variety of flow conditions.
*
- Dry Weather Conditions
An analysis of the severity of pollution problems associated
with dry weather conditions should be conducted. Dry weather
flow conditions which are critical for maintaining biological
life or recreation in or on the waters should be noted, a design
condition for dry weather should be chosen, and its average dura-
tion and frequency of occurrence should be specified. In select-
ing the critical low flow condition, it should be kept in mind that
emergency procedures may be required to meet water quality standards
when the design flow condition is met or exceeded. 41
- Wet Weather Conditions
An analysis of the severity of pollution problems associated
with wet weather stream conditions should be conducted. Any wet
weather flow conditions which are critical in terms of maintaining
biological life or recreation in or on the waters should be noted.
A design condition for wet weather flow conditions should be
chosen, and its intensity, duration, and antecedent conditions
specified (e.g., 1/2 inch rain per hour, for two hours, after
two weeks of dry weather).
1) Relationship of Maximum Daily Load to Water Quality Standards *
Each water quality standards parameter (including thermal)
being violated or expected to be violated in the segment must
be identified, and the total maximum daily loads of these pollutants
3-22
I
-------
which may be added to the water body by an point and nonpoint
sources without violating the standard at the design condition
must be determined.* This determination may require use of math-
ematical modeling (see discussion of models below).
Each total load limitation must be at least as stringent as
necessary to achieve the applicable standard under the critical
water quality conditions prescribed by the standards, and any
conditions which should be anticipated in the individual situation,
such as seasonal waste discharges. It must include provisions for
seasonal variation and for a margin of safety which takes into
account any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between
effluents and water quality as well as any uncertainty resulting
from insufficient data, including data from nonpoint sources.
Where thermal standards may be violated, thermal loads must be
separately estimated as provided in 5131.11(f)(2). For all
parameters, the antidegradation principle applies (see Ch. 5 of
these guidelines).
2) Seasonal Variation and Margin of Safety
The purpose of choosing a design condition for establishing
total maximum daily loads is to determine a stream flow condition
likely to cause severe stress on living organisms and to ensure
that water quality standards are met even under these conditions.
Design conditions should thus represent extremes in pollutant
stress on the stream. It is possible, however, that even more
extreme stresses might occur under more unusual climatic conditions,
Thus, the choice of a design condition should include an estimate
of the likelihood of more extreme conditions occuring.
*Because of the difficulty of predicting pollutant loading under wet
weather conditions at the specific time interval of the design condition,
it may be more practical to establish the maximum allowable load for runoff
related pollutants over a longer time period such as a month or year.
(This is only feasible, however, for non-biodegrading pollutant parameters.)
Nevertheless, the long-term*allowable load constraint should be sufficiently
stringent so that peak loading at high flow periods would not be expected
to violate water quality standards. Longer term allowable loads may be
especially appropriate for bodies of water in which build-up of pollutants
may be a problem (e.g., impoundments, lakes, estuaries, or problems of
benthic deposits in general). The long-term allowable load should be such
that the natural flushing capacity of the receiving water is not exceeded.
3-23
-------
The margin of safety, on the other hand, should reflect
lack of certainty about the characteristics of stream discharges.
In the case of point sources, there may be considerable variation
in the rate of loading of the discharge. The margin of safety
should cover the possible coincidence of peak loading from these
sources. Margins of safety for nonpoint sources should be based
on the degree to which the magnitude of the existing nonpoint source
can be calculated and the variability of the rate of loading under
the design condition for which loads are established. The calcula-
tion of a margin of safety for nonpoint sources cannot be based on
information on variability of individual discharges, but rather
should be based on observed variability of gross loading from
nonpoint sources, either in the particular area or as documented
in the literature.
b. Establishing of Thermal Loads
Same general guidance as fora.above.
c. Proportion of the Maximum Daily Load for Point and Nonpoint Sources
For both dry weather and wet weather flow conditions, the maximum
daily load consistent with meeting water quality standards should be
broken down into the proportion of the load (for each parameter) from
point sources (both continuous and intermittent) and nonpoint sources.
This breakdown requires knowledge of the existing proportion of point
and nonpoint loadings in the segment under the design flow conditions.
Both point and nonpoint source loadings could be reduced proportionally
to a level consistent with the maximum allowable load for all sources.
However, there are a variety of procedures that could be used in load
allocation.
A tradeoff between these loadings may be necessary in order to
develop the point source load allocation under element (g). The
allotment for point sources should be the basis for calculating
individual point source load allocations, while the nonpoint source
allotment should be used to determine the target level of nonpoint
source loading reduction needed for all nonpoint sources. This
target reduction for nonpoint sources will provide a guide in select-
ing the degree of abatement needed for each category of existing
nonpoint source generating activities and in choosing Best Management
Practices.
In establishing the gross allotment for nonpoint sources (which
may contribute substantial amounts of the conservative substances),
it is necessary to consider to what extent the loads established
3-24
-------
under wet weather conditions will be adequate when the flow in the
stream subsides and the conservative substances remain as deposits
in the stream bed.
An allowance for growth should be made in the allocation. The
purpose of alloting some of the pollutant load to growth is to allow
new municipal and industrial discharges to locate in an area without
imposing waste!oad restrictions that are far more stringent than
those required of existing discharges.
The allowance that may be reserved for future growth should be
calculated primarily for point sources, since it is not feasible to
attempt to relate individual nonpoint source discharging activities
to specific discharge amounts. The approach that should be taken
toward new nonpoint source discharge is further explained in Ch. 7.
In making an allowance for growth, there are a number of important
considerations:
- The regulatory program required under element (n) should specify
under what conditions new discharges would be allowed to locate
in an area and include authority to restrict location of dis-
charges so as to implement the allowance for growth specified
in the plan.
- An allowance for growth in wasteloads must be consistent with
the policy that the State adopts regarding antidegradation (see
element (e).
d. Use of Mathematical Models in Establishing Maximum Allowable
Daily Loalf?
Modeling is generally the appropriate method of ascertaining total
maximum daily loads and determining the effects of the proposed
alternative abatement strategies. The modeling technique selected
depends on the nature and complexity of the problem. The technique
should represent the minimum level of sophistication needed to provide
for wasteload allocations.
Results of modeling may reveal that previous segment classifications
have not been accurate. After the modeling has been completed,
segment classifications should be reviewed and revised if necessary.
3-25
-------
6- Classify Segments
Water bodies may be classified as "effluent limited", where the
base level effluent limitations required under the Act are sufficient
to meet water quality standards. Where higher levels of abatement would
be needed to meci b^r.dards, the water body should be classified as
"water quality nivrttd". Segment classification should be based on
comparing the existing and projected loads with the maximum allowable
load. However, if maximum allowable loads have not been established,
and the segment ^cri^ ' ?ter quality standards it can be classified as
effluent limited. This classification cannot be assured if new waste
loads were introduced to the segment. The development of abatement
measures for various; pollutant sources will depend on the segment classi
fication.
a> Effluent Limi td_n'ons Segments
In any segments classified as effluent limited, application of
Best Practicable Treatment is required of all point sources, other
than publicly-owned treatment works by July 1, 1977, by which time
owned treatment works are required to apply effluent limitations
based on secondary treatment. By July 1, 1983, point sources
other than publicly owned treatment works are to utilize Best
Available fech,io'!oq; (BAT), while by such time, publicly-owned
treatment work, ire to utilize Best Practicable Waste Treatment
Technology (BPW'IT).
In addition IM the requirement to meet BAT/BPWTT, the State may
establish an antuiegradation policy in segments that can be classi-
fied as effluent limited based on the existing discharges to the
segment. An .mti degradation policy entails establishing definite
limitations on further deterioration of water quality in given stream
segments. Where the State seeks to establish such limits, it should
classify the segment, as water quality limited, since it will be
necessary to develop maximum allowable loads and individual load
limitations in order to carry out the antidegradation policy,,
-------
The analysis should be completed for each pollutant which is in
violation of water quality standards. Each source contributing
that pollutant to the segment should be identified and alternative
remedial measures considered. The final control strategy for the
segment should reflect a combination of control methods which will meet
water quality standards.
1) Select Eligible Sets of Waste Load Reductions to Meet
Maximum Daily Load"
The maximum daily load consists of a proportion allowed for
point sources and an allotment for nonpoint sources. It is not
necessary to allocate the allotment for nonpoint sources to par-
ticular dischargers. The allotment for nonpoint sources should
be used as an overall guide in selecting abatement measures for
such sources. On the other hand, the proportion of the total
load that is established for point sources should be allocated to
individual sources. There are many possible sets of individual
point source load allocations. Alternative allocations should
be considered in the process of developing point source abatement
measures.
a) Point Source Load Allocation --Element (g)
(1) General Procedures for Point Source Load Allocation
The purpose of waste load allocations is to formally
state the actions necessary to maintain or improve the
quality of the affected waters. State and Federal water
quality agencies must have waste load allocations (1) in
order to establish a basis for assigning effluent limita-
tions and issuing permits to individual dischargers in
order to meet water quality standards and (2) to identify
and provide a basis for ranking needs of municipalities
for which planning and possible construction of federally-
assisted facilities should be initiated within the next
five years.
A State WQM Plan only prescribes the abatement strategy
for individual sources generally. While the plan does not
determine detailed engineering specifications for particular
projects, some knowledge of alternative facilities and non-
structural alternatives and their associated costs is
obviously required to develop feasible, effective allocations
which implement the water quality standards.
3-27
-------
The allocations for each industrial or municipal dis-
charger should result in a total effluent allowance. It
should be recognized that restrictions may result in the
discharger being forced to close or reduce its operation
to avoid being subjected to possible enforcement actions;
(through action on a permit or other enforcement mechanism
under State law). To determine feasible limts, the analysis
should consider generally the alternative technical capa-
bilities available to each discharger. Where standards
are being violated because of point source discharges,
the technical requirements for some point sources may be
beyond base level effluent limitations. In addition,
existing information on the trade-offs and total costs
among combinations of alternatives for multiple sources
should be reviewed in search of the mix of processes at
all facilities which will result in the most efficient
overall plan for achieving standards when all sources are
in operation. Detailed consideration of technical and
economic trade-offs between alternatives may be derived
from 201 plans or in 208 plans for designated areas.
Information obtained from the detailed analysis in 201
plans should be reflected in State WQM Plans.
(a) Coordination with Permits
The Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit Program is designed to ensure that pollutant
dischargers will not exceed prescribed levels. Since no
permits may be issued for point sources which are in con-
flict with approved State WQM plans, the permit system
provides an essential tool for implementation of plans.
Many first-round municipal permits expire on July 1,
1977, well before the scheduled completion of most plans.
Thus, special efforts may be needed to coordinate some
second-round municipal permits with ongoing planning.
This coordination is most important where construction is
scheduled at a facility within the life of its second-
round permit. ,
3-28
-------
In each State, the NPDES agency is responsible for
drafting and issuing enforceable NPDES permits. The NPDES
agency should inform the State and areawide planning
agencies of proposed terms of permits affecting dischargers
in their planning areas. (It is the responsibility of each
planning agency to inform the NPDES agency of conflicts
between draft permits and ongoing planning.) The NPDES
agency should proceed to draft and issue permits prior to
approval of WQM pains. Where early outputs are available
from the State or areawide planning agencies, the NPDES
agency should consider them during the drafting of permits,
especially with respect to municipal facilities anticipating
construction during the life of the permit.
The State planning agency is responsible for developing
waste load allocations for all water quality limited seg-
ments. (The State may delegate this responsibility to
local agencies.) The State planning agency should also
review draft permits for dischargers in the State and in-
form the NPDES agency of any conflicts with ongoing planning,
For all dischargers within the boundaries of its area,
designated areawide planning agencies are to:
. review all permits drafted by the NPDES agency to
check for consistency with ongoing planning. This
review may take place prior to or concurrent with
the normal public participation procedures on per-
mit conditions;
. inform the NPDES agency if any draft permit is not
consistent with approved plans, approved parts of
plans, or likely conclusions of the planning process.
In addition, all areawide planning agencies whose areas
include water quality limited segments (or parts of water
quality limited segments) for which waste load allocations
already exist should review the waste load allocations, and
transmit the findings of the review to the State and EPA.
In all areawide planning areas, the designated planning
agencies may also undertake any of the following tasks, but
only if the State specifically delegates the responsibility
for these tasks to the areawide agency:
. revision of existing waste load allocations;
. preparation of waste load allocations where they are
needed but do not already exist.
3-29
-------
(b) Coordination with Facilities Planning
(40 CFR Part 35. SubparTTT
Facilities planning involves detailed planning directly
related to the federally assisted construction of municipal
waste treatment facilities. Such plans provide for cost
effective and environmentally acceptable municipal waste
treatment or control by determining the best practicable
alternative waste management system over time, its geo-
graphic coverage, its service of other area sources,
including industrial sources, and the nature and amount of
the planned discharge (load reduction achieved).
The State WQM Plan will provide the following input
to further facilities planning (also refer to element
(h) in Ch. 3.6):
. service areas
. capacities and population served
. load reduction or level of treatment
. type of treatment
. preliminary cost estimates
Where detailed facilities planning reveals that infor-
mation from the State WQM Plan does not accurately
reflect particular conditions in an area, the State
should be consulted so that these aspects of the
State WQM Plan can be revised where necessary.
(c) Relation to 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management
in Designated Areas'
The division of planning responsibility between the
State and designated 208 planning agencies is discussed in
Ch. 2. The State has ultimate responsibility for developing
and approving waste load allocations but may delegate the
analytic work to other agencies including designated 208
agencies. Where the 208 designated agencies are revising
or developing waste load allocations, the
State must ensure that these allocations are consistent
with the total maximum loads for upstream and downstream
segments in the basin in which designated 208 planning is
undertaken.
3-30
-------
(d) Nonpoint Sources
In allocating pollutant loads among point suurces, the
pollutant contribution from nonpoint sources should be
considered to assure that the combined total wiil not ex-
ceed applicable water quality standards. Such contribution
should be separately entered in the load allocation display.
The long term point source load allocations may depend upon
the abatement and control alternatives for -nonpoint sources.
(e) Accomodation of Future Growth
Growth trend information compiled for the segment should
be considered and a determination made as to the load allot-
ments, if any. to be reserved for future dischcuges. The
allotment must be consistent with continuing Achievement
of standards and prevention of significant water nualit.y
degradation (see Ch. 5). The growth allotment should be
separately displayed in the reported load el !o- -t ir?i.
(f) Upstream Contribution
The amount of pollutants entering the segment, fro"i
upstream should be considered when determining whether the
total of proposed individual point and nonpoin' allowances
exceeds the allowable maximum (see element (f)). ^or
purposes of notation and calculation, the estimate of this
contribution necessarily involves coordination with planning
for the upstream segment. The method of coordination, level
of certainty regarding the estimated future loaH, and the
time span covered is a matter of planning judgen^nt.
(2) Load Allocation Techniques
Load .allocation involves planning for many uncertainties such
as uncertainty with respect to growth projections; a lack of
knowledge of cause-effect relationships between effluents and
water quality; pending decisions with respect to the construction
of reservoirs, withdrawals, and other developments which could
significantly affect the assignment of effluent limitations;
and uncertainty as to the quality of the data being employed.
Recommendations on how to deal with these problem
-------
segments higher levels of technology could be required to
achieve standards. Since the rate of growth of waste loads
is controlled by local decisions with respect to annexa-
tion, industrial expansion, sewer connection permits, etc.,
the plan's load projections and allocations must be reviewed
with the responsible municipalities and industries. The
regulatory program (see Ch. 9) should provide regulation over
new waste discharging facilities consistent with the State
WQM Plan.
(b) Lack of Cause-Effect Knowledge
Uncertainty due to a lack of knowledge of the cause-effect
relationships among waste loads and water quality must be
taken into account in the waste load allocation process to
provide a basis for specifying tolerance levels for prediction
errors. Where the cost of errors is relatively small,
factors of safety should be included; where the cost of
errors is large, an ongoing monitoring program should be
developed to improve the quality of the data used in the
waste load allocation process.
(c) Pending Development
Where there is substantial uncertainty with respect to
pending development decisions, allocations should be made
under both the assumption that development will not occur
and that the development will occur. Water quality impli-
cations of the proposed development should then be brought
to the attention of the decision-makers concerned with the
project.
(d) Uncertainty as to the Quality of Data
High levels of confidence in the data should exist where
the costs of possible error are large. Lower confidence
levels can be tolerated where the resulting costs of error are
small. Additional confirmation of data should be sought
where the costs of possible error are large.
Because of the variations that will exist in the quality
of information that can be used in load allocation, there
are no generally applicable load allocation decision rules
that should be applied in all situations. In general though,
anticipated violations result from one of three situations:
pollution primarily from nonpoint sources; pollution primarily
from treatment plant effluents after the achievement of base
level limitations; or pollution from treatment plant effluents
3-32
-------
and nonpoint sources of comparable magnitude. Allocations
under each of these conditions could be as follows:
. Dominant Nonpoint
Where water quality standards would not be achieved
after the application of Best Available Technology (BAT)
by industrial and BPWTT by municipal point sources, and
the remaining violations are predominantly caused by
nonpoint sources, loads should be allocated to point
sources according to BAT/BPWTT treatment limitations,
since water quality would not be significantly im-
proved through the application of higher effluent
limitations. Overall levels of nonpoint source load
reduction needed to meet standards should be established
(e.g., the gross allotment for nonpoint sources referred
to in element (f)). This allotment should be used in
determining Best Management Practices for nonpoint
sources (see Ch. 7).
. Dominant Point
Where pollution from point sources after the appli-
cation of BAT/BPWTT is the dominant cause of anticipated
violations, loads should be allocated to achieve water
quality standards in a cost-effective manner, including
allocations requiring higher levels of treatment or
control. In segments where previously developed plans
are available and up to date, these plans may be suffi-
cient to assign waste loads to individual sources. In
other segments, evaluation of alternative load allocation
strategies is necessary to determine the most cost-
effective strategy for achieving water quality standards.
Waste loads should be allocated consistent with the
preferred strategy.
. Comparable Point and Nonpoint
Where pollution from nonpoint sources after the appli-
cation of BAT/BPWTT-treatment, and pollution from nonpoint
sources are of comparable magnitude, the tradeoffs between
overall point and nonpoint load reduction should be con-
sidered, and a gross allotment for nonpoint sources
established, as discussed in regard to dominant nonpoint
areas.
Evaluation of tradeoffs between point and nonpoint source
abatement should be carried out only at the level of
detail required to execute the waste load allocation process.
3-33
-------
The evaluation should not reach the level of engineering
design, but should consider the nonstructural alternatives
Whatever the cause of water quality problems, the
following assumptions on low flow and wet weather flow
conditions may need to be employed in allocating to
point sources and establishing the gross allotment for
nonpoint sources.
(e) Low Flow Conditions
Continuous or seasonal point source allocations should
generally be made for dry weather low flow conditions, or
whatever other critical design condition is chosen for es-
tablishing maximum allowable daily loads.
Intermittent point sources and nonpoint sources that are
rainfall related may not be present under low flow conditions.
Therefore, the load allocation to point sources under low
flow conditions will be similar to the situation described as
dominant point source above.
Nevertheless, at low flow there may be nonpoint source
problems due to in-stream deposits of material accumulated
from point and nonpoint sources. To the extent that the low
flow water quality problem is caused by the deposit of mater-
ial under high flow conditions from nonpoint sources, the
reduction of this load will help alleviate the problem. If
this is the case, the point source load allocation options
may be similar to those described as comparable point and
nonpoint above.
(f) Wet Weather Flow Conditions
Continuous or seasonal point source allocations should
first be established for low flow conditions. These allo-
cations should be maintained for high flow conditions unless
it is possible to write permit conditions that would allow
waste loads to vary depending on stream flow.
Assuming a constant load allocation for point sources
(based on low flow), the waste load reduction needed to
meet standards under wet weather flow conditions will have
to be borne by abatement of nonpoint sources. In other words,
some of the remaining portion of the maximum daily load for
the stream, after imposition of waste load allocation for
point sources (based on low flow) will be equivalent to the
gross allotment for nonpoint sources. Further guidance on
how to determine nonpoint source abatement approaches to meet
this gross allotment is provided in Ch. 7.
3-34
-------
(3) Relationship Between Individual Load Allocations and
Maximum Daily Load to the Segments
Because a segment may encompass considerable stream length,
it is possible that there will be variation in the assimilative
capacity, especially for biodegradable pollutants, depending on
the location of the discharge points along the segment. In such
cases, mathematical models should be used to determine whether
the pollutant loadings are compatible with meeting water quality
standards at each discharge point. In some cases, the sum of the
individual discharges may exceed the maximum allowable daily load.
If this proves to be the case, the maximum allowable load should
be revised to account for the configuration of discharges that
may be proposed.
(4) Consistency of Growth Assumptions; Implementation of
Allowance for GrowtF
The growth allowance used in the waste load allocation pro-
cess must be compatible with the growth projections made under
element (c). A regulatory program (element (n) below) should
be developed to assure that any new discharges introduced into
the area are within the allowance for growth of wasteloads.
(5) Relationship with Permits
After wasteload allocations have been established, the target
abatement dates and schedules of compliance to include as terms
in permits should be described under element (m) below.
2) Test Sets of Wasteload Reductions to Determine Consistency
The analytic model discussed earlier in this chapter should be used
to determine whether wasteload allocations for continuous point sources
enable meeting standards. The choice of a tolerance level and the
rationale for that choice should be explicity stated.
It is not necessary and probably not feasible to attempt to model
the receiving water impact of the load reductions assigned to inter-
mittent point sources and nonpoint sources, as this may require highly
sophisticated analytic modeling and more extensive data requirements
than can be met during the planning period. It is only necessary to
determine whether the predicted load reductions for intermittent point
and nonpoint sources enable meeting the single gross allotment or
target abatement level for these sources.
Because some proportion of wasteloads may be reserved to allow for
future growth in the area, it is important that the wasteload alloca-
tion process be undertaken in close coordination with agencies possess-
ing land use planning and control authority. Management of new waste-
load discharges in the area should be carried out through the regulatory
program for implementing the plan (see Ch. 9).
3-35
-------
D. Choose Approach (and Level of Detail) for Relating Water Quality
Constraints to Abatement Measures*
After the water quality analysis has been conducted, it should be possible
to specify the categories of sources for which detailed control plans are
needed. As explained in Chapter 3.3.C, where it is not clearly established
that particular problems exist or that implementation measures can be under-
taken in the next five years, the implementation program for these sources
(elements (h)-(o)) can be developed in the form of an assessment of control
needs. At this point in the planning process, decisions can be made con-
cerning the level of detail in which abatement measures can be made concerning
the level of detail in which abatement measures will be developed.
Maximum allowable daily loads (MAL) for each pollutant parameter and each
segment provide a total load constraint which can be met through many
possible combinations of load reductions from different sources. There are
basically two approaches that can be used to match up the different possible
load reduction sets to the maximum allowable daily load:
1. Area Approach: Compare the alternative abatement measures for the
entire area in order to meet the MAL for each parameter in the most
cost-effective manner.
The area approach may enable an optimal selection of controls. This
approach is appropriate where many sources are suspected of contributing
to a particular pollutant parameter. Urban concentrations are likely to
present complex sources of pollution. To assign a certain load reduction
at low flow to municipal sources and another to industrial sources without
considering the most cost-effective load reduction could lead to an uneco-
nomic solution. In fact, the point source load allocation program normally
does consider alternative reductions by different point sources. However,
the area approach could also be applied to nonpoint sources. For example,
load reductions assigned at wet weather flows to stormwater and rural
runoff could be varied in order to choose the least cost solution for
reducing the existing sediment problem. The main shortcoming of this
approach is that it requires a great deal of information on the relative
loading from different sources to be available before load reductions can
be assigned to the sources.
2. Category Approach: Allocate a proportion of the MAL for each parameter
to the various source categories. Within a particular source category,
the most cost-effective combination of controls would be chosen.
The category by category approach may be more appropriate where particu-
lar categories of sources contribute to violations of given parameters.
The reduction of the loading of the violated parameter can readily be
assigned to a few categories of sources according to simple allocation
techniques. More guidance on these techniques is presented in Ch. 7.
3-36
-------
a. Establish Categories
In order to isolate particular pollution problems and concentrate
planning efforts on these problems, it is important to define the
spectrum of possible problems of which a particular category of sources
is a part. A classification system should therefore be developed to
cover all pollution problems. In the case of municipal and industrial
sources, the classification is straightforward. For runoff related
sources, a system of classification should be developed based on the
factors that influence pollution generation—both natural features and
man-made activities. Classification of nonpoint sources is further
discussed in Ch. 7.
b. Allocate Waste Load Reductions from Step C.6. to Each
Category of Sources'
A number of decision rules can be employed in allocating waste load
reductions to particular categories and subcategories of pollution
sources:
1) Proportional Reduction
This approach would involve dividing the allowable load among all
pollution-generating categories in proportion to the existing extent
of activity of the various categories. For example, the nonpoint
source allotment would be allocated in proportion to area occupied
by nonpoint source activities. The point source allotment would be
allocated in proportion to existing rate of pollutant loading,
existing dollar production level, or some other equitable basis.
The advantage of this approach is the stress on equity; the disad-
vantage is that it requires extensive information and relies on an
arbitrary basis for allocation.
2) Equal Relative Reduction Approach
This approach involves determining a relative reduction from
existing instream pollutant loads by all sources to meet the maximum
allowable load for a particular parameter. This relative reduction
level would be applied in relation to the existing rate of pollution
generation by each category in order to determine load reductions
for the category. The advantage of this approach is that it is simple
and equitable. The disadvantage is that it may not be very efficient
for all polluters to reduce their pollution loading by the same pro-
portion.
3) Best Technology Approach
This approach involves selecting the degree of reduction for each
3-37
-------
category of sources based on the abatement efficiency of the tech-
nology for each category. If reduction levels for all sources were
determined by this approach, they might not correspond to the max-
imum daily load for a segment. Upward or downward revisions in
abatement requirements would need to be made after assessing the
impact of applying the best technologies for each category of sources.
The advantage of this approach is that it allocates the burden of
cleanup to those categories or sources having the technical capa-
bility to assume the burden. The disadvantage is that the best
technology does not necessarily correspond to the pollution abatement
needs of particular areas.
More complex decision rules combining proportional reduction with
specified base levels of reduction for each category could be formulated.
The principal problem in allocating waste load reductions, however, is
the uncertainty inherent in predicting the magnitude of pollution prob-
lems with or without control. Methods for predicting pollution loading
in runoff are discussed in Ch. 7. The advantages and limitations of
these methods should be considered in choosing decision rules for allo-
cating load reduction to various categories of pollutant sources.
Once decision rules have been chosen for allocating load reduction,
reduction levels should be assigned for each parameter to each category
(and sub-category) of sources. It is also possible that the choice
will be made to allocate load reductions on a category by category basis
only to sources occuring under wet weather flow conditions. This could
be accomplished by making a "gross allotment" of the MAL between point
and nonpoint sources and following the area approach to allocate loads
to individual point sources and the category by category approach to
allocate load reduction to nonpoint sources.
E. Develop Abatement Plans
1. Area Approach
a. Determine Alternative Area Sub-Plans to Meet Eligible Load
Reductions/Effluent Limitations
Chapters 6-8 provide a framework for developing pollution control
options for point and nonpoint sources. The alternatives that are
presented as the result of detailed planning for point and nonpoint
sources-are referred to as subplans. These subplans encompass elements
(h)-(m) of the required plan elements. These elements are described
on pages 3-56 ff.
In order to develop subplans, it is helpful to examine the patterns
of existing and projected wasteloads by display on land use maps.
Alternatives for point and nonpoint source control, and means to imple-
ment these controls, may be developed through an examination of alterna-
tive land use and land management practices. (See Ch. 6.) It should
be emphasized that the detailed land use-water quality analysis described
in Ch. 6 is an optional approach for development of abatement measures.
3-38
-------
Subplans may be broken into three major types according to the
category of sources and design conditions to which they apply:
1) Continuous or Seasonal Point Source Subplans
Continuous point sources are municipal treatment works and indus-
trial point sources. Some industrial point sources may discharge on
a seasonal basis. Detail on preparing this subplan is provided in Ch. 8,
2) Intermittent Point Source Subplans
Intermittent point sources are wet weather related point sources
such as combined sewer overflows. Detail on preparing this subplan is
provided in Chapters 6, 7 and 8.
3) Nonpoint Source Subplans
Nonpoint sources are primarily wet weather related. Detail on
•preparing this subplan is provided in Ch. 7.
For purposes of comparing alternatives, each subplan should furnish
information on the following (this information encompasses some of the
required information for each plan element):
. Wasteload characteristics of each alternative expressed in
appropriate units;
. Total cost of each alternative expressed as its present value
or average equivalent value of capital and operating costs for
the overall alternative and subsystem components;
. Information on the reliability of each alternative and subsystem
included in each alternative;
. Significant environmental effects of each alternative consistent
with NEPA procedures, including a specific statement on future
development impact;
. Contribution of each alternative to other water-related goals of
the planning area.
b. Screen Subplans
Control options under each subplan are numerous. Thus, the number of
possible subplans may be so great as to impede consideration of logical
alternatives. Since the only subplans that are viable are those which
the management agency(s) can implement, it is important at this stage to
integrate the results of management planning with those of technical
planning.
3-39
-------
c. Combine Subplans into Alternative Plans
At this step, viable subplans should be combined into alternative
technical plans for final evaluation and selection. This is not
meant to preclude reconsidering options previously screened out,
but merely to provide a convenient form of organizing a vast number of
potential control alternatives into a reasonable number to evaluate.
2. Category Approach
a. Develop Alternative Controls for Each Category of Sources
to Meet Load Reductions/Effluent Limitations
For each category to which a load reduction has been assigned,
alternative control plans should be prepared. These control plans
should provide the specific information required under elements
(h)-(l), which are further discussed below. For purposes of com-
paring alternatives, such control plans should furnish information on
the following (this information encompasses some of the required
information for each plan element):
. Waste!oad characteristics of each alternative expressed in
appropriate units;
. Total cost of each alternative expressed as its present value
or average equivalent value of capital and operating costs for
the overall alternative and subsystem components;
. Information on the reliability of each alternative and subsystem
included in each alternative;
. Significant environmental effects of each alternative consistent
with NEPA procedures, including a specific statement on future
development impact;
. Contribution of each alternative to other water-related goals
of the planning area.
These subplans encompass elements (h)-(m) of the required plan
elements. Guidance on these elements is provided below. It should
be noted, however, that requirements of the regulation must be met
under both the area approach as well as the category approach.
1) Municipal Facilities Needs -- Element (h)
Guidance is provided in Chapter 8.
3-40
-------
2) Industrial Facilities Needs -- Element (i)
Guidance is provided in Chapter 8.
3) Nonpoint Source Control Needs -- Element (j)
a) Summary of Needs
S131.11(j)(l) calls for a summary of the nonpoint source control
needs of a State. This statement of needs should be broken down by
type of nonpoint source problem (the categories established under
element (d)) and planning area or subarea as delineated in element
(a). This summary should be based on the analyses and evaluations
discussed in (b) and (c) below.
b) Nonpoint Source Analysis and Evaluation
For each nonpoint source category, in each planning area,
there should be an analysis of the alternative control measures
from which Best Management Practices could be chosen. A procedure
for choosing Best Management Practices is presented in detail in
Ch. 7. The procedure calls for a distinction between new and
existing nonpoint sources in each category. The distinction
between "existing" and "new" nonpoint source activities will be
left to the discretion of the State. General guidance on how this
distinction could be made in practical terms is presented in
Ch. 7. The rationale for this distinction is that it is prac-
tically impossible to anticipate the magnitude of future nonpoint
sources. Thus, controls for existing nonpoint sources should be
related to a gross allotment for such sources, whereas controls
for new nonpoint sources should be set at a level which would
protect water quality from further deterioration. The analyses
of nonpoint source controls should present alternatives for both
new and existing sources. For each alternative, the information
listed in the regulation and criteria for meeting the regulation
should be presented. Guidance on developing regulatory programs
and choosing implementing agencies is presented in Ch. 9.
c) Nonpoint Source Categories
The nonpoint source categories established in the Act and the
Part 131 regulations should be used as a basis for establishing
the categories of nonpoint sources for which planning will be
undertaken. However, since Section 201(c) provides a general man-
date for 208 planning to "provide control and treatment of all
point and nonpoint source of pollution, including in place or
accumulated pollution sources," these categories should not be
3-41
-------
interpreted U c:1,; ri.jp ,;,ny nonpoint source problems. If needed
to carry out. the ;;..mnd(e of Section 201 (c), additional categories
or subcateyones - nonpoint sources should be established for
purposes cf o latin ;,••<,, Chapter 7 provides guidance on how to
establish n.onnoir-r sour,:^ categories for purposes of planning.
4 ) Residual _Was f ~t-_ GJ. .• •'.-,, "ic^s ; Land Disposal Needs -- Element (k)
a ) Disposa 1 or I J ': ? H z at i pn_ of Residuals from Treatment Processes
The municipal and industrial needs assessment should include a
preliminary ioeru i M. . jtion of the residual waste disposal or util-
ization option t"( . euc!i facility. Further guidance is contained
in Chs. 7 and 3.
b) Land Disposal ^. ^'^jj^yiL^^
The nonpoint source planning process should include establish-
ment of Best Management Practices for land disposal of pollutants,
for both existina and new sources in this category. Refer to
Ch. 7 for further guidance.
^ ) Urban and J mh;o i - ; •• i ;> I S t o rmwater Systems Needs -- Element (1)
a) Analysi s or Kx", -ting Problems
The general nrorrdure for nonpoint source planning is presented
in Ch; 7.
b) Analysis of Nev> stormwater Systems
Assuming tna! modification of the existing drainage pattern is
categorized as a "r.ew" nonpoint source category by the State, the
procedure for establishing Best Management Practices for new non-
point sources Crf-, . 7' should be followed. Guidance on regulatory
programs for in- •?! .'-men ting controls is found in Ch. 9.
c)
The cost, e-t -iino-'a1 --Iiould be of a generalized nature since
the asses smp-s-'t nf •. i-.o rmwater needs and performance criteria for
new systems will ;,ot include detailed engineering designs. The
cost estimates !,et-J only be detailed enough to enable decisions
concerning cost effectiveness of various alternatives. See
Ch. 11 for fijM>er information on stormwater abatement cost
estimates.
3-42
-------
6) Target Abatement Dates (Schedules of Compliance ~- Element (m)
a) Eff1 uent Limi tations
Effluent limitations must be established for
significant point sources in any water quality segment.
Limitations must be set forth for every pollutant discharged
by the source. Effluent limitations established in any
current permit must be at least as stringent as necessary
to meet the requirements of the Act and applicable regula-
tions, and, for parameters for which load allocations are
required, the load allocations established for each source.
The Administrator is publishing effluent guidelines defining
Best Practicable Waste Treatment Technology for municipal facil-
ities and Best Available Technology for various classes and
categories of industrial point sources. Copies of the guide-
lines and information regarding them may be obtained from
the Regional Administrator. Stricter than base level limita-
tions must be developed where the base level restrictions
would not result in compliance with the source's load
allocation and with water quality standards,
b) Target Abatement Dates
Target abatement dates or schedules of compliance must be
determined for point sources which are not currently in compliance
with the effluent limitations. If the State is participating in
the NPDES, target dates for the processing of permits for any
source which will not have been processed at the time of the
State WQM Plan completion must also be set forth.
Major milestone dates from the schedules of compliance es-
tablished by current NPDES permits must be included in the
segment analysis. Target abatement dates must be developed for
all other significant sources and for any source having a permit
with an incomplete schedule.
Each schedule of compliance or target abatement date should
reflect stringent performance goals to assure implementation of
the plan's required effluent limitations in the shortest prac-
ticable time. However, all dates established by the plan must
be realistic and feasible. The schedules or targets should
provide for timely implementation of statutory goals.
3-43
-------
3.7 Management Planning
A. Purpose
The key implementation and enforcement provisions for State WQM Plans are
delineated in Section 208(b)(2)(c) and (c)(2) of the Act. The Act requires
that authority to carry out the above provisions be vested in a designated
agency or agencies within a planning area. The purpose of management plan-
ning is to select a management agency or agencies and to develop appropriate
institutional arrangements through which the plan can be implemented.
Institutional arrangements are the formal structure of affected state
and local units of government for planning and implementing a water
quality management plan.
The Act clearly specifies the responsibilities and functions of the
management agency(s). The criteria that should be used to determine whether
the management agency(s) can properly carry out these responsibilities are:
. adequate legal authority
. adequate financial capacity
The Act does not, however, stipulate what institutional arrangements
should be utilized to enable plan implementation. Criteria for evaluating
the adequacy of the management agency(s) and institutional arrangements
should be:
. Practicability — To what extent do institutional arrangements rely
on existing water quality management agencies? Are the institutional
arrangements politically feasible?
. Managerial Capacity -- To what extent do institutional arrangements
provide for program oversight including procedures for resolving con-
flicts and cooperating with other areawide planning activities?
. Public Accountability -- To what extent do institutional arrangements
provide for a decision-making process accountable to the area electorate?
1. Functions of Management Agencies
To ensure plan implementation, the management agency(s) and the
supporting institutional arrangements need to carry out the following
functions:
3-44
-------
a. General Management Program
One of the most important functions of management agency(s) is
to provide general direction for the implementation of the plan.
The management responsibilities involved in directing plan imple-
mentation should include:
. program supervision and coordination, e.g., ensuring that the
program is being implemented, that the program is being coordin-
ated with other programs in the area, and that the performance of
the program is being continually assessed;
. continuous planning, e.g., updating the plan and implementation
mechanisms as required by changing conditions;
. fiscal management, e.g., assuring that adequate resources are
provided to implement the regulatory and waste management programs as
well as to finance the administration and continuous planning func-
tions of the management agency(s).
b. Regulatory Program
Authority to carry out the regulatory program mandated in Section
208(b)(2)(C) is required. In addition to authority to regulate
existing and new pollution sources, administrative .procedures and
agencies responsible for implementing the regulation need to be
specified. The regulatory program Will be one of the vehicles for enforc-
ing the abatement measures that have been developed through the tech-
nical planning process. In addition to direct regulation, appropriate
tax policies should be developed to complement the regulatory program.
c. Haste Treatment Program
The legal authority and financial capacity needed for operating,
maintaining, and constructing waste treatment works and otherwise
carrying out a plan is described in Section 208(c)(2) of the Act. A
waste treatment program includes all the capital construction res-
ponsibilities to carry out a plan, such as publicly owned treatment
works as well as all other public sector programs for abating pollution
which may include residual waste management, stormwater management,
and nonpoint source management.
2. Management Agency(s) and Institutional Arrangements Capable of
Implementing the Plan
The great variety of local institutions, practices, and experience
dictates that a pragmatic strategy be followed in selecting management
agency(s) and formulating institutional arrangements. The arrangements
may be comprised of one or more agencies, which may be existing or
3-45
-------
newly created and local, regional, or statewide in jurisdiction, and
may also rely on intergovernmental agreements.
Although care should be taken to ensure that the institutional
arrangements fit the local situation, excessive fragmentation of auth-
ority and responsibility should be avoided. The greater the number of
agencies involved in implementing the plan, the greater the need to
coordinate between the agencies. The complexity of institutional
arrangement should not prevent a clear delineation of the decision-making
process used to implement the plan. In particular, there should be an
explicit arrangement for ensuring overall supervision and enforcement of
the management plan.
B. Define Characteristics of the Regulatory Program and Management Agency(s)
and Institutional Arrangements to Meet Requirements of the Act
The first step in management planning should be to determine the techni-
cal solutions to water quality problems that have been proposed for the
area. For each technical solution, there should be adequate authority to
implement the solution (through regulatory and waste treatment programs),
proper financial arrangements and agency(s) responsible for implementing
the solution. A description should be made of the needed authority, finan-
cial, and management arrangements as required by the Act and Part 131
regulations, in terms of the particular technical solutions proposed for
the planning area. This description should be based on meeting the pro-
visions of elements (n) and (o) of 40 CFR, Part 131.11 (see pages 3-56 ff).
The description may be arranged under the following headings:
- Legal authority and financial capacity for:
. General management program;
. Regulatory program;
. Waste treatment program.
- Management structure and institutional arrangements to carry out
functions.
1. Regulatory Program-- Element (n)
Chapter 9 provides overall guidance on how to develop regulatory
programs -- from inventorying existing regulations to developing new
regulatory proposals. The following guidance pertains to various pro-
visions of the regulation:
3-46
-------
a. Establishment of Areawlde Regulatory Proqr.iins (Existing Sources)
In developing regulatory programs, it is impprUn': to ensure an
areawide approach; that is, similar problems shuul'i have similar
solutions. This necessitates coordination between Dfanning done for
similar problems.
Although this does not necessarily require ?, <. o;nmon management
agency for each problem, there should also be uv/raination between
management agencies that are implementing confr-ois for similar
problems.
To document the need for the regulatory control" chat are chosen,
the State Water Quality Management Plan should re!ate the maximum
allowable pollutant load identified in element (f < t/j the regulatory
controls that are chosen to reduce existing levfeH of pollutant load-
ing to a level consistent with the water quality :;o^is, Regulatory
controls should be established for each category nf -ources.
The following characteristics of regulatory pr;-<oriric!s, appeals.)
b. Pretreatment Regulatory Program
Section 307 of the Act concerns pretreatmer.t , d-nn'rements governing
discharge of pollutants into publicly owned \n:.("*'" :.!.»atment works.
Regulations for Section 307 should be consults '<-.\ developing local
pretreatment regulatory programs.
3-47
-------
In addition to the national pretreatment requirements, an analysis
should be conducted of acceptable levels of influent quality for dis-
charqes into the particular treatment plants in the planning area. It
is particularly important to consider what tolerance the treatment
processes have for toxic waste loads. It is also important to con-
sider the quality of the sludge from the treatment plants, since
the presence of toxics and heavy metals may restrict beneficial uses
of sludge.
The characteristics of a regulatory program needed to meet the
requirements are discussed further in Ch. 9.
c. Establishment of Areawide Regulatory Program (New Sources)
The choice of regulatory controls for new pollutant sources should
be based on the abatement needs for point sources needed to meet rele-
vant waste load limitations, and the degree of abatement of nonpoint
sources needed to protect water quality from further deterioration.
The procedure for selecting nonpoint source controls for new sources
is discussed in Ch. 7.
The characteristics of a regulatory program needed to meet the
requirements are discussed'further in Ch. 9.
d. Choice of Best Management Practices
The documentation of the degree of abatement needed for controls for
existing point and nonpoint sources is discussed above. In addition to
documenting that Best Management Practices have been chosen, the plan
should describe the relationship between Best Management Practices for
different categories of sources and the State's ongoing monitoring pro-
gram. The monitoring program should provide information that can be
used to evaluate the effectiveness of the BMP's adopted by the State.
2. Implementing and Operating Agencies -- Element (o)
a. Agencies Responsible for Carrying out Plan Elements
The plans will generally include the following ways of imple-
menting pollution abatement:
. Waste treatment plant construction;
. Municipal and industrial effluent limitations, pretreatment
standards, and sewer use regulations;
. Best Management Practices for new and existing nonpoint sources,
urban runoff, residual wastes, and land disposal.
3-48
-------
Each of these means will require designating a management agency or
agencies to implement the abatement requirements. In general, munici-
pal and special sewerage districts should be chosen to implement the
facilities operation and construction component of the plan; the State
should assure that municipal and industrial effluent limitations are
followed; the jurisdictions and agency(s) responsible for facilities
operation and construction should develop and enforce pretreatment
regulation and regulation of sewer hook-ups; a combination of local,
county, State, and special purposes agencies should be responsible
for developing and implementing regulations requiring BMPs.
The institutional structure and arrangements for supervising and
carrying out the plan are further discussed in Ch. 9.
b. Authority and Financial Capacity of Management Agencies
Chapters 9 and 10 provides more detailed discussion of legal auth-
ority and financial capacity of management agencies.
C. Conduct Management Analysis
The next step in the management planning process should be an analysis of
the area's experience in water quality management. The purpose of this
analysis will be to evaluate the capability within the area to meet the man-
agement requirements of Section 208 and to develop an understanding of what
is needed to satisfy these requirements. Some of the analysis will have
been accomplished in the designation and grant application stages. During
the planning process, this preliminary assessment should be reviewed and,
where necessary, expanded to assure its accuracy and thoroughness. The
following analyses should be provided:
1. An assessment of the specific legal authority required under Subsection
208(c)(2) and 208(b)(2)(C) to carry out the regulatory and waste manage-
ment programs and an approach for acquiring such authority. The approach
should delineate what enabling or supplemental legislation would be
necessary, the type of contractual agreements that might be employed, and
the possibility for adapting to existing laws. In instances where exist-
ing laws might be broadly interpreted as furnishing the required authority,
but where such interpretation may be subject to dispute, it would be best
to seek specific statutory sanction.
2. An evaluation of existing financial arrangements to determine what
changes will be necessary to provide affected agencies with the capacity
to meet financial needs and obligations for carrying out general manage-
ment responsibilities, the regulatory program, and waste management
program.
3-49
-------
3. An assessment of the potential of existing institutions in the area
to perform the required functions. An overall assessment should be
made of the area's potential for regional water quality management.
This evaluation should seek to assess the effectiveness of regional
management to date and the strength of the area's traditions and commit-
ment to regional approaches. The evaluation should incorporate an
appraisal of the relationships between federally funded regional planning
authorities and regional or local water quality management agencies such
as transportation, land disposal of wastes, land use planning, and water
supply where such agency activities affect water quality. The purpose of
the evaluation is to, help ensure that implementation plans are constructed
on a realistic foundation which reflects the area's experience in region-
alized management.
D. Develop Alternative Management Plans
Upon completion of the management analysis, alternative management plans
reflecting the results of this analysis should be developed. These manage-
ment plans should meet the provisions for elements (n) and (o) of 40 CFR
Part 131. In most cases, only a limited number" of alternatives will be
appropriate. Close coordination with the technical planning component of
the planning process will be necessary throughout this stage to ensure
that the management alternatives developed are consistent with alternative
technical plans. As an initial step in the formulation of management alter-
natives, the broad options available should be reviewed and assessed. Care-
ful consideration should be given to the advantages and constraints of these
options in relation to the designated areas. Once developed, the implemen-
tation alternatives should be screened in terms of their feasibility accord-
ing to the criteria discussed previously. An overall assessment of the
implementation feasibility of the alternatives for management acjency(s) and
institutional arrangements should be based on all the criteria discussed.
>
3.8 Combined Plan Evaluation and Selection
The regulations on State WQM Plans do not specifically require that alterna-
tive plans be developed and evaluated. However, given the complexity of the
choices involved in developing State WQM Plans, it is recommended that a sys-
tematic evaluation of alternatives be undertaken where necessary. This section
of the planning process suggests procedures for plan evaluation and selection.
A. Combine Alternative Technical Plans that Meet Standards with
Alternative Management Plan Corresponding to Technical Plans
Technical and management planning should yield a series of technical plans
for which an alternative management plan to implement the technical plan has
been presented. At this step, the alternative technical plans should be
3-50
-------
simply combined.
For each alternative technical and management plan that is combined into an
alternative State WQM Plan, sufficient detail concerning the schedule of
actions to be undertaken should be provided to enable accurate evaluation
of the plan in terms of meeting 1983 water quality goals.
B. Compile Information on Alternative Plans
The following information on the plans should be assembled for comparison
of alternatives:
1. Contribution to Water Quality and Other Related Water Management Goals
of the Area (Information from Chapters 5-8);
2. Technical Reliability (Information from Chapters 7-8);
3. Monetary Costs (Information from Chapters 7-8; methodology for cost
evaluation provided in Chapter 11);
4. Environmental Effects (Information from Chapters 7-8, methodology
for environmental evaluation provided in Chapter 13);
5. Economic and Social Effects (Methodology for evaluation of economic
and social effects provided in Chapter 13);
6. Implementation Feasibility (Information from Chapters 9 and 10);
7. Public Acceptability (Guidance on means to assure public involvement
in the planning process provided in Chapter 4).
Much of the above information will have been developed in the planning
process; that which has not should be compiled in order to be able to proceed
to final plan selection. Information may be conveniently assembled on tables
like those presented in Chapter 14.
The format and procedures provided in Chapter 13 for compiling information on
alternative plans is specifically designed to fulfill the need for the appli-
cant to prepare an environmental assessment on the plan. Chapter 14 provides
optional guidance on plan evaluation and selection.
C. Compare Alternative Plans and Select Final Plan
1. Effects of Alternative Plans
Comparison of alternatives and selection of a final plan should be
the product of public deliberation over the merits of the various plans
under consideration. A discussion of means to involve the public in
3-51
-------
the overall planning process is provided in Chapter 4. Suggested procedures
for public involvement in selection of the final plan are provided in
Chapter 14.
2. Vary Alternatives if Necessary for Final Selection
To achieve the most desirable overall plan, a variant or composite of
plans originally proposed could be considered.
3. Prepare Environmental Assessment of Plan: Environmental, Social,
Economic Impact -- Element (p)
Chapter 13 provides guidance on impact assessment. This guidance
should be followed to complete the requirements of element (p)
of a State WQM Plan.
D. Develop Detailed Description of Plan Features
In the process of screening, evaluating, and selecting plans, features
of the plan may not have been developed in sufficient detail. At this
step, the timing and detail of the plan should be finalized. A critical
path chart may be a useful format for depicting the sequencing of plan
implementation.
E. Include Provisions for Performance Assessment, Plan Revision,
and Updating
The plan, which covers a 20-year period, should be updated as necessary,
and must be certified annually by the governor. Procedures for performance
assessment and updating both technical and management features of the plan
are to be specified in the initial plan submittal.
3.9 Plan Outputs
The major elements of a State WQM Plan are presented in Table 3.1 (p.3-56 ff.)
along with the criteria for meeting the requirements of the regulation. These
criteria may be used by the States and EPA in their reviews to determine if the
State WQM Plans conform with the requirements of the Act, regulations,, and the
continuing planning process.
In addition to the elements in Table 3.1, the plan should include provisions
for performance assessment, plan revision, and updating. These provisions should
describe procedures for assessing progress of plan implementation, for modifying
specific plan elements, for developing certain elements in more detail, and where
possible, provide alternatives in the event that an original course of action
3-52
-------
proves infeasible or inadvisable in light of changed conditions.
3.10 Plan Adoption, Approval, and Revision
The following chart (Table 3.4) depicts the sequence of plan adoption,
approval, and revision for plans developed by designated areawide planning
agencies as well as by State agencies. These steps correspond to the re-
quirements of Part 131.20-22. These procedures are generally self explan-
atory in the regulations. However, further clarification of the criteria
for State certification of plans for designated areas and EPA approval of
State WQM Plans is presented in this section.
A. Review and Certification of Plans for Designated Areawide
Planning Areas (S131.20TnT
Designated areawide planning agencies may submit all or parts of the
State WQM Plan developed for the designated area for review and certifi-
cation by the State. (In the case of interstate areas, designated area
plans should first be submitted to the State encompassing the majority
of the designated area population). Annual review and certification of
such plans is also required pursuant to S131.22. States should review and
certify plans developed by designated areas according to the following
criteria:
1. Requirements of Part 130 and 131 (SI31.20(f)(l)(i))
The criteria by which the State reviews the parts of the State WQM
Plan developed by designated areawide agencies should be the same as
the criteria applied in the EPA review of the State WQM Plan as a whole:
the plans or parts thereof should conform to the requirements of the
Act and approved planning process, and contain the plan elements stated
in Part 131. Where grants have been made to areawide agencies under
the interim grant regulations (40 CFR Part 35, Subpart F), the plans
or portions thereof should meet the requirements of the interim grant
regulations and approved work plans. Nevertheless, all plans developed
for areawide planning areas should be consistent with the State WQM Plan
according to the criteria presented below.
2. Water Quality Control Needs (S131.20(f)(l)(ii))
In addition to the overall review criteria of meeting the Part 130
and 131 requirements, the State should ascertain whether the plans or
parts thereof, are consistent with other plan elements developed for
the area by the State or in cooperation with the State. In particular,
the State should ensure that the plans or parts thereof, meet the adopted
State water quality standards and are consistent with approved maximum
allowable daily loads of pollutants and point source waste.load allocations,
3-53
-------
Table 3.4 Plan Adoption, Approval, and Revision
Procedures
A. Plan Review and Certification
Ffor portions of a State WQM Plan
Developed by Designated Areawide
Planning Agencies)
1. Plan Developed and Public
Participation Completed
(5131.20(a))
A. Plan Review and Certification
a State WQfTTlan
(for portions of
Developed by a State Agency)
1. Plan Developed and Public
Participation Completed
(S131.20(a))
i
Plan Submitted to Elected
Officials and Governor for
Review and Recommendation
(S131.20(b))
2.
Plan Submitted to Local E'ected
Officials for Comment (S131.20(c))
Comments by Governor;
Comments by Elected Officials
Within 30 days (S131.20(b))
4. Plan submitted to Regional
Administrator for Comment -
Optional (S131..20(d))
5. Plan Formally Submitted to
Governor (S131.20(e))
6. Plan Reviewed, Certified,
Conditionally Certified or
not Certified by the Governor
(S131.20(f)), (9))
3. Plan Submitted to Regional
Administrator for Comment —
Optional (S131.20(d))
B.
Plan Adoption
1.
Plan Adopted by the State
(S131.20(h))
C. Plan Submission
Final Plans Subnitted to
Regional Administrator --
no later than Nov. 1, 1978
($131.20(1))
4
Portions of Plans (Interim Outputs)
Submitted — according to above
procedure at any time during develop-
ment of plans (S131.20U))
D. Plan Approval
1. Plans Approved, Conditionally
Approved, or Disapproved by
Regional Administrator — Within
120 days of submission (S131.21(a),(b),(c))
E. Plan Review and Revision
1. State or Designated Area Reviews,
Revises Plans (if necessary) Annually
(S131.22(a))
2. Minor Plan Revisions Submitted to
Regional Administrator --
through State in the Case of
Designated Areas (S131.22(b))
3. Plan Revisions Resulting from
Determinations of the Administrator
or State (S131.22(cl)
4. Substantive Revisions Submitted to
Regional Administrator — According
to Original Review, Certification,
Submission, and Approval Procedures
(S131.22(d))
3-54
-------
3. Consistency with Existing Law; Recommendation for Change of
Existing Law ($151.20(f)(l)(TTT)T
The State should also determine whether implementation of the plan
would be consistent with existing State and local laws regarding land
use and environmental protection, or whether implementation of the
plan would require changes in such laws. The State should determine
how to resolve conflicts between recommendations of the plan and exist-
ing State and local law, and in adopting the plan accept, reject, or
modifying the proposed solutions to such conflicts.
4. Basis for Selecting Management Agencies (§131.20(f)(l)(iv))
Finally, the State should determine whether the plan includes adequate
recommendations concerning the agencies that the Governor could select
to implement each provision of the plan, For each aspect of the plan
it is necessary to have a management agency or agencies capable of
implementing that portion of the plan. Each management agency must
be capable of meeting the applicable requirements of §131.11(o).
The determination of the applicable requirements will be based on
an agency's assigned responsibilities under the plan. For example,
an agency responsible for implementing parts of the regulatory program
would not necessarily have to have authority to build waste treatment
facilities,
5. State Adoption of the Plan (§131.20(f)(1)(v))
The State should either certify that the plan or parts thereof will
be incorporated as the official State WQM Plan (or element thereof)
for the appropriate planning area or if the plan is deficient, deter-
mine tha specific changes and schedule for such changes to be made by
the designated agency in order to receive State certification.
3-55
-------
Table 3.1
40 C. F. R. Part 131
Criteria for Meeting Requirements
(a) Planning boundaries. A delinea-
tion, on a map of appropriate scale, of
the following: (1) The approved State
planning areas included in the State
planning process submitted and ap-
proved pursuant to 5 130.41 of this Chap-
ter and areawide planning areas desig-
nated pursuant to § 130.13 of this
Chapter.
(2) Those areas in which facilities
planning has been deemed necessary by
the State pursuant to § 35.917-2 of this
Chapter.
(3) The location of each water quality
and effluent limitation segment identified
in § 131.1Kb) (2).
(4) The location of each significant
discharger identified in § 131.11(c).
(5) The location of fixed monitoring
stations.
(NOTE: Such monitoring station locations
may be omitted 11 such locations are avail-
able in the EPA water quality Information
system).
(a) Self-explanatory
(b) Water quality assessment and seg-
ment classifications. (1) An assessment
of existing and potential water quality
problems within the approved planning
area or designated areawide planning
area, including an identification of the
types and degree of problems and the
sources of pollutants (both point and
nonpoint sources) contributing to the
problems. The results of this assessment
should be reflected in the State's report
required under Section 305(b) of the
Act.
(2) The classification of each segment
as either water quality or effluent limita-
tion as defined in § 130.2(o) of this
Chapter.
(i) Segments shall include the sur-
rounding- land areas that contribute or
may contribute to alterations in the
physical, chemical, or biological charac-
teristics of the surface waters.
(ii) Water quality problems generally
shall be described in terms of existing or
potential violations of water quality
standards.
(iii) Each water quality segment
classification shall include the specific
water quality parameters requiring con-
(Sideration in the total maximum daily
load allocation process.
(iv) In the segment classification
process, upstream sources that con-
tribute or may contribute to such alter-
ations should be considered when iden-
tifying boundaries of each segment.
(v) The classification of segments
shall be based on measurements of in-
stream water quality, where available.
(b) Self-explanatory
3-56
-------
Table 3.1
40 C. F. R. Part 131
(c) Inventories and projections. (1)
An inventory of municipal and Industrial
sources of pollutants and a ranking of
municipal sources which shall be used
by the State in the development of the
annual State strategy described in
§ 130.20 of this Chapter and the "project
priority list" described in §35.915(c) of
this Chapter. The inventory shall in-
clude a description, by parameter, of the
major waste discharge characteristics of
each significant discharger of pollutants
based on data from the National Pol-
lutant Discharge Elimination System and
the associated compliance monitoring
systems, whenever available.
(2) A summary of existing land use
patterns.
(3) Demographic and economic growth
projections for at least a 20-year plan-
ning period disaggregated to the level
of detail necessary to identify potential
water quality problems.
(4) Projected municipal and industrial
wasteloads based on § 131.11 (c) (1) and
(3).
(5) Projected land use patterns based
on § 131.11(0) (2) and (3).
Cntena_for_Meet_1]ia.Returnernan!§__ ..
(c)
(1) The inventories of municipal and
Industrial sources should include all such
sources contained in the planning area. Mun-
icipal sources should be, ranked consistent
with the most current State ranking system
as approved by the EPA R.:qionai Office. The
Industrial sources inventory need not be
prioritized, but should include all such
sources subject to NPDES permit issuance.
Analysis (and/or sjrvwry; of significant
sources should include information on:
-- flow of discharge
— all major discharge waste
characteristics including all
parameters which are limited by
an NPDES permit or which cause a
violation of Water Quality Standards
— Numerical permit restrictions giver
in terms of concentrations or mass
per unit of time
— Stringency of effluent limitations
related to BPT, BAT, or meeting
Water Quality Standards
— Final date for compliance with
applicable effluent limitations
(2) Show land use patterns at a level of
detail appropriate for design of pollution
abatement strategies; as a guide the fol-
lowing size units of land should be classi-
fied according to land use:
-- 40-160 acre parcels in developed
and developing areas (for purposes
of facilities planning); these parcels
should be on a map of suitable scale
such as 1"=2000'
-- 640 acre parcels or larger in unde-
veloped areas with a scale appropri-
ate for evaluating runoff problems (e.g.
soils maps)
(3) -- Show how demographic and
economic projections relate
to OBERS Series E projections;
— show consistency with projections
used 1n State air quality plans
— show how projections are dis-
aggregated to each planning area
and within planning areas.
(4) Show how wasteload factors have
been developed.
(5) Show projected land use patterns
based on (c)(2) and (3) and consistent
with level of detail 1n (C){2). Show
how population growth shown in (C)(3) is
allocated to land uses in (C)(5).
3-57
-------
Table 3.1
40 C. F. R. Part 131
Criteria for Meeting Requirements
(d) Nonpoint source assessment. An
assessment of water quality problem*
caused by nonpoint sources of pollutants.
(1) The assessment shall include a de-
scription of the type of problem, an iden-
tification of the waters affected (by seg-
ment or other appropriate planning
area), an evaluation of the seriousness of
the effects on those waters, and an iden-
tification of nonnoint sources (by cate-
gory as defined in 5131.1HJ)) con-
tributing to the problem.
(2) Any nonpoint sources of pollutants
originating outside a segment which ma-
terially affect water quality within the
segment shall be considered.
(3) The results of this assessment
should be reflected in the States' report
required under Section 305 (b) of the
Act.
(d)
Include nonpoint source assessment in
water quality assessment required under (b)
(e) Water quality standards. The ap-
plicable water quality standards, includ-
ing the Statewide antidegradation policy,
established pursuant to Section 303(a),
(b), and (c) of the Act and any plans
for the revision of such water quality
standards.
(e) Self-explanatory
(f) Total maximum daily loads. (1)
For each water quality segment, or ap-
propriate portion thereof, the total al-
lowable maximum daily load of relevant
pollutants during critical flow condi-
tions for each specific water quality
criterion being violated or expected to be
violated.
(!) Such total maximum dally loads
shall be established at levels necessary
to achieve compliance with applicable
water quality standards.
(ii) Such loads shall take into ac-
count:
(A) Provision for seasonal variation;
and
(B) Provision of a margin of safety
which takes into account any lack of
knowledge concerning the relationship
between effluent limitations and water
quality.
(2) For each water quality segment
where thermal water quality criteria are
being violated or expected to be violated,
the total daily thermal load during
critical flow conditions allowable in each.
segment.
(i) Such loads shall be established at
a level necessary to assure the protection
and propagation of a balanced, indige-
nous population of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife.
(ii) Such loans shall take into account:
(A) Normal water temperature;
(B) Flow rates;
(C) Seasonal variations;
(D) Existing sources of heat input;
and
(E) The dissipative capacity of the
waters within the identified segment.
(f)
(1) Specification of flow conditions
under which maximum daily load is calculated.
(i) Demonstration that the selected
maximum daily load for each water quality
segment and each parameter is. consistent
with meeting the water quality standard
(this may require use of an analytic model).
(11) . Show the relationship between
seasonal variation and the choice of
the design flow conditions.
. Show the rationale used in
determining the margin of safety
(2) Same criteria as (f)(l) above.
3-58
-------
Table 3.1
40 C. F. R. Part 131
Criteria for Meeting Requirements
(iii) Each estimate shall Include an
estimate of the maximum heat input that
can be made into the waters of each
segment where temperature is one of the
criteria being violated or expected to be
violated and shall include a margin of
safety which takes into account lack of
knowledge concerning the development
of thermal water quality criteria for pro-
tection and propagation of flsh, shellfish
and wildlife in the waters of the identi-
fied segments.
(3) For each water quality segment, a
total allocation for point sources of pol-
lutants and a gross allotment for non-
point sources of pollutants.
(1) A specific allowance for growth
shall be included in the allocation for
point sources and the gross allotment for
nonpolnt sources.
-------
K, Par? 131
(3) Each pollutant load allocation
established pursuant to this paragraph
shall.incorporate en allowance for antic-
ipated economic and population growth
over at least a five-year period and an
additional allowance reflecting the pre-
cision and validity of the method used
in determining such allowance.
(4) Establishment of pollutant load
allocations shall be coordinated with the
development of terms and conditions of
permits under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System and with
any hearings pursuant to Section 302
and 316(a) of the Act relating to a source
discharging to or otherwise affecting the
segment.
(Nome: Point source load allocations shall
not be fietermlned by designated areawlde
planning agencies except where the State has
delegated such responsibility to the desig-
nated agency. In those cases where the re-
sponsibility has not been delegated, the State
shall determine point source load allocations
for the designated areawide planning area).
(h) Municipal waste treatment sys-
tems needs. (1) The municipal waste-
water collection and treatment system
needs by 5-year increments, over at least
a 20-year period including an analysis of
alternative waste treatment systems, re-
quirements for and general availability
of land for waste treatment facilities and
land treatment and disposal systems,
total capital funding required for con-
struction, and a program to provide the
necessary financial arrangements for the
development of 'such systems.
(2) The identification of municipal
waste treatment systems needs shall take
into consideration:
(i) Load reductions needed to 1>e
achieved by each waste treatment system
in order to attain and maintain appli-
cable water quality standards and effluent
limitations.
(ii) Population or population equiva-
lents to be served, including forecasted
growth or decline of such population
over at least a 20-year period following
the scheduled date for installation of
the needed facility.
(ill) The results of preliminary and
completed planning conducted under
Step I and Step H grants pursuant to
Title II of the Act.
(NOTE: In the absence of the Title H plan-
ning described above, the State is expecte'd
to develop the necessary estimates and anal-
yses required under i 131,ll(h) (1)).
Criteria for Meeting Requirements
(3) Show how the allotment for growth
reflects anticipated economic and demoqraohic
growth over a five-year period, consistent with
projections developed under (c),
(4) Show existing permit terms under
(c) and proposed permit terms under (m).
(h)
(1-2) For each facility, provide an analysis of how
each major alternative for treatment (treatment and discharge
re-use, land application) has been considered; after choosing
one of the above approaches show the following information
regarding alternatives for meeting treatment needs:
— service areas
— flows to be treated, over 20 years
by 5 year increments
-- wasteload reduction including pre-
treatment requirements and requirements
for higher than base level control
where needed to meet waste load al-
location
— type of treatment (physical, chemical,
biological or combination thereof)
— population to be served including
relationship with population and land
use projections shown in (c)
~ Indications of any infiltration/inflow
problems and possible corrective mea-
sures
— preliminary Identification of sludge
disposal/utilization options
— costs of treatment, infiltration/
Inflow correction and sludge utilization
or disposal [based on available 201
or 208 plans, or preliminary cost
estimates]
~ Indication of proposed program for
financing capital and operating
costs of treatment
(3) Self-explanatory
3-60
-------
Table 3.1
40 C. F. R. Part 131
(1) Industrial waste treatment systems
needs, (l) The anticipated industrial
point source wasteload reductions re-
quired to attain and maintain applicable
water quality standards and effluent
limitations for at least a 20-year plan-
ning period (in'5-year increments).
(2) Any alternative considerations for
industrial sources connected to munici-
pal systems should be reflected in the
alternative considerations for such mu-
nicipal Watse treatment system.
Criteria for Meeting Requirements
(D
(1) Show Industrial flows as projected
in (c) and needed load reduction to meet load
allocations described in (g), for a 20 year
period in 5 year increments
(2) As part of the information
developed for (h), show relationship of
Industrial flows to amount of flow to be
treated by municipal systems (if systems
are interconnected); specify the cost
recovery requirements that would apply to
Industrial users and the degree to which
cost recovery would provide financing of
treatment works
(j) Nonpoint source control needs. (1)
For each category of nonpoint sources
of pollutants to be considered in any
specified area as established in the
State/EPA agreement (see 5 130.11 of
this Chapter), an identification and
evaluation of all measures necessary to
produce the desired level of control
through application of best management
practices (recognizing that the applica-
tion of best management practices may
vary from area to area depending upon
the extent of water quality problems).
(2) The evaluation shall include an
assessment of nonpoint source control
measures applied thus far, the period of
time required to achieve the desired con-
trol (see § 131.11 (m)), the proposed reg-
ulatory programs to achieve the controls
(see § ISl.lKn)), the management agen-
cies needed to achieve the controls (see
§ 131.11(o)), and the costs by agency and
activity, presented by 5-year increments,
to achieve the desired controls, and a
description of the proposed actions nec-
essary to achieve such controls.
(3) The norrooint source categories
shall include: (i) Agriculturally related
nonpoint sources of pollution including
runoff from manure disposal areas, and
from land used for livestock and crop
production;
(ii) Silviculturally related nonpoint
sources of pollution;
(iii) Mine-related sources of pollution
including new, current and abandoned
surface and underground mine runoff;
(iv) Construction activity related
sources of pollution;
(v) Sources of pollution from disposal
on land in wells or in subsurface exca-
vations that affect ground and surface
water quality;
(vi) Salt water intrustion into rivers,
lakes, estuaries and groundwater result-
ing from reduction of fresh water flow
from any cause, including Irrigation, ob-
struction, groundwater extraction, and
diversion; and
(J)
(1) For each nonpoint source category
identified in (d) and each planning area or
sub-area delineated in (a) show the following:
(2) . Alternatives and measures chosen
for reducing pollutants from existing nonpoint
sources to a level consistent with the gross
allotment established for such sources
. Alternatives and measures chosen
for new or potential nonpoint sources so as
to maintain existing water quality
. For each alternative measure and
chosen measure for reducing pollutant gener-
ation from existing or new nonpoint sources
show:
— period of time to carry out measure
(also see m)
-- adequacy of regulatory program to
implement measures (also see n)
— agency(s) to supervise implementation
(also see o)
— costs of implementing controls
(both public and private sector costs)
-- budget of agency to supervise
implementation
(3) self-explanatory
3-61
-------
Table 3.1
40 C. F. R. Part 131
Criteria for Meetino Requirements
(vli) Sources of pollution related to
hydrologic modifications, including those
caused by changes in the movement,
flow, or circulation of any navigable
waters or groundwaters due to construc-
tion and operation of dams, levees, chan-
nels, or Sow diversion facilities.
(NOTE: Nonpolnt source control needs need
not be determined by designated areawlde
planning agencies where the Governor has
determined pursuant to Section 208 (b) (4)
of tho Act that the State will develop non-
point source control requirements on a
Statewide basis.)
(k) Residual waste control needs;
land disposal needs. (1) An identification
of the necessary controls to be estab-
lished over the disposition of residual
wastes which could affect water quality
and a description of the proposed actions
necessary to achieve sjich controls.
(2) An identification of the necessary
controls to be established over the dis-
posal of pollutants on land or in sub-
surface excavations-4o protect ground
and surface water quality and a descrip-
tion of the proposed actions necessary to
achieve such controls.
(NOTE: Residual waste control needs need
not be determined by designated areawlde
planning agencies where the Governor has
determined pursuant to Section 208{b) (4) of
the Act that the State will develop residual
waste control requirements pursuant to Sec-
tion 208(b)(2) (J) and (K) on a Statewide
basis.)
(k)
(1) Provision for utilization or disposal
of residual wastes from municipal, industrial
and private facilities should be included in
(h) and (i)
(2) Identification of all existing
and proposed residual waste, and subsurface
disposal sites in area. Identification of
control measures needed to be implemented
for existing residual waste, land, and
subsurface disposal sites including abandoned
sites. Identification of control measures
to be Implemented for new residual waste,
land, and subsurface disposal sites, to
regulate future increases in wasteloads from
such sites. For each control measure above,
Identification of corresponding regulatory
program to implement controls. Demonstration
that the planning process includes an
analysis of wasteloads generated from residual
waste disposal sites.
(1) Urban and industrial stormwater
systems needs. (1) An identification of
the required Improvements to existing
urban and industrial stormwater sys-
tems, including combined sewer over-
flows, that are necessary to attain and
maintain applicable water quality stand-
ards.
(2) An identification of the needed
urban and industrial stormwater systems
for areas not presently served over at
least a 20-year planning period (in 5-
year increments) that are necessary to
attain and maintain applicable water
quality standards, emphasizing appro-
priate land management and other non-
structual techniques for control of urban
and industrial stormwater runoff.
(3) A cost estimate for the needs iden-
tified in (1) and (2) above, the reduction
hi capital construction costs brought
about by nonstructural control measures,
and any capital and annual operating
costs of such facilities and practices.
(1)
(1) An analysis of the magnitude of
existing and anticipated urban stormwater
problems including those resulting from
combined sewer overflows. A specification
of measures to be undertaken either to
better manage existing storm and combined
sewer systems and prevent entry of pollu-
tants to such systems, or to provide for
storage and treatment of such runoff.
(2) Specification of performance
criteria for new construction of urban
stormwater systems, so as to minimize any
stormwater problems (including a regulatory
program to implement performance criteria).
(3) Estimation of the effect on capital
construction costs brought about by non-
structural control measures. Cost for
Improvements to existing systems and for
implementing performance criteria for new
systems including:
— public and private sector capital costs
— operations and maintenance costs
3-62
-------
Table 3.1
40 C. F. R. Part 131
(m) Target abatement dates. Target
abatement dates or schedules of com-
pliance for all significant dischargers,
nonpolnt source control measures, resid-
ual and land disposal controls, and
stormwater system needs, including
major interim and final completion dates.
and requirements that are necessary to
assure an adequate tracking of progress
toward compliance.
Criteria for Meeting Requirements
(m)
For each category of sources identified
under (b) indicate:
-- schedule of compliance with terms
of NPOES permit
— schedule to implement BMP for all
nonpoint sources, stormwater
systems and residual waste systems
— include interim completion dates
and proposed scheduling of regulatory
actions
(n) Regulatory programs. (1) A de-
scription of existing State/local regula-
tory programs which are being or will be
utilized to implement the State water
quality management plan. The descrip-
tion shall include the regulatory ap-
proach to be employed, the statutory
basis for the program, and relevant ad-
ministrative and financial program
aspects.
(2) A description of necessary addi-
tional State/local regulatory programs to
be established in order to implement the
State water Quality management plan.
The description shall include the pro-
posed regulatory approach, the necessary
legislation, and anticipated administra-
tive and financial capabilities.
(3) The regulatory programs described
In f 131.11 (n) (1) and (2) should gen-
erally take fun advantage of existing
legislative authorities and administrative
capabilities. However, such programs
shall assure that:
(1) To the extent practicable, waste
treatment management including point
and nonpoint source management shall
be on a Statewide and/or an areawlde
basis and provide for the control or
abatement of all sources of pollution In-
cluding inplace or accumulated deposits
of pollutants;
(ii) The location, modification and
construction of any facilities, activities,
or substantive changes in use of the lands
within the approved planning area,
which might result in any new or delete-
rious discharge directly or indirectly into
navigable waters are regulated; and
(iii) Any industrial or commercial
wastes discharged Into any publicly
owned treatment works meet applicable
pretreatment requirements.
(n)
(1-2| Demonstration that management
agency(s) recommended to implement plan
have authority and capability specified
in S208(c)(2) to provide waste treatment
management on an areawide basis. Demon-
stration that planning process has iden-
tified and evaluated all sources of
pollution in the area and developed appro-
priate control alternatives for existing
and potential forms of pollution, including
waste load reduction levels consistent
with meeting and maintaining water quality
goals of Section 101(a)(2).
-- For each category of pollutant sources
identified in the planning process
(including nonpoint source categories
in (d)), identification of corresponding
controls included in the initial plan.
Demonstration that an adequate
regulatory program for each category of
pollutant sources identified in the plan-
ning process is included in the plan, by
documenting:
— conditions and situations in which
regulation applies, including abatement
requirements
— timing of regulations, notice, and hearings
-- legal form of regulation e.g., activity
permits, land use controls, zoning, building
codes, licensing of pollutant generating
activities, conservation plans, etc.
— legal authority for regulation; adequacy
of existing law or proposed new regulation
— agencies responsible for implementing
regulation, agency staffing and funding
for programs
(3}(i-ii) Same documentation as (n)(1).
Demonstration that, to the extent practicable,
waste treatment management is on an areawlde
and/or Statewide basis.
(iii) Demonstration that pretreatment
requirements of §307 of the Act will be met.
Demonstration that implementation of 8307
requirements and other requirements proposed
In the plan will allow proper functioning of
facilities proposed in (h)(l).
3-63
-------
Table 3.1
40 C. F. R. Part 131
(o) Management agencies. (!) The
identification of those agencies recom-
mended for designation by the Governor
pursu-int to § 130.15 of this Chapter to
carry out each of the provisions of the
water quality management plan. The
identification shall include those agen-
cies necessary to construct, operate and
maintain all treatment works identified
in the plan and those agencies necessary
to implement the regulatory programs
described in §,131.11(n).
(2) Depending upon an agency's as-
signed responsibilities under the plan,
the agency must have adequate author-
ity and capability:
(i) To carry out its assigned portions
of an approved State water quality man-
agement plan(s) (including the plans
developed for areawide planning areas
designated pursuant to Section 208(a)
(2), (3), or (4) of the Act) developed
under this part;
(ii) To effectively manage waste treat-
ment works and related point and non-
point source facilities and practices
serving such area in conformance with
the approved plan;
(iii) Directly or by contract, to design
and construct new works, and to operate
and maintain new and existing works as
required by nny approved water quality
management plan developed under this
part;
(iv) To accept and utilize grants or
other funds from any source for waste
treatment management or nonpotnt
source control purposes;
(v) To raise revenues, including the
assessment of user charges;
(vi) To incur short and long term In-
debtedness;
(vii) To assure, In implementation of
an approved water quality management
plan, that each participating community
pays its proportionate share of related
costs;
(viii) To refuse to receive any wastes
from a municipality or subdivision
thereof, which does not comply with any
provision of an approved water quality
management plan applicable to such
areas; and
(ix) To accept for treatment industrial
wastes.
Criteria for Meeting Requirements
(o)
(1) For each planning area and for
each category of sources identified in the
plan, identify agency(s) responsible for
construction, operation, and maintenance
of treatment works, and for carryi ng out
the regulatory programs specified in (n)
(2) For each requirement (o)(2)(i-ix)
relating to authority of management agencies
to carry out various functions indicate the
source of authority, the specific legislation
or regulation specifying how such authority
may be exercised by the appropriate agency,
and the budget authority to implement each
element of the plan.
(p) Environmental, social, economic
Impact. An assessment of the environ-
mental, social, and economic impact of
carrying out the plan.
(P)
(1) Environmental assessment of the
plan (either at the level of each planning
area or portions of planning areas) including
Identification of
~ plan schedule
~ effectiveness in meeting water
quality goals
~ direct costs
-- social, economic, environmental Impact
3-64
-------
CHAPTER 4
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
4.1 Introduction
A. Need for Public Involvement
The success of a water quality plan depends on its acceptance
by the public and in particular affected units of local government.
It is important that the general public in the planning area be
actively involved in plan development and that public participation
in the implementation phase of the plan be encouraged. Due to the
complexity of planning, it is necessary to provide a structured
program of public involvement to assure adequate exchange of
information and opinion between the public and the planning agency.
B. Legal Requirements
Public particpation is an important element in any water quality
planning effort. Section 101(e) of the Act states:
Public participation in the development, revision,
and enforcement of any regulation, standard, effluent
limitation, plan or program established by the
Administrator (of EPA) or any State under this
Act shall be provided for, encouraged, and
assisted by the Administrator and the States.
Parts 130 and 131 establish extensive citizen participation
requirements. Citizen participation is mandated throughout the
entire planning process. In addition, the Environmental Protection
Agency has published regulations specifying the minimum guidelines
for public participation in water pollution control efforts. These
regulations (40 CFR 105), summarized below, require planning agencies
to do the following (See 40 CFR 105 for complete requirements):
1. Provide technical information "at the earliest practicable
times and at places easily accessible to interested or affected
persons and organizations" and to assist the public in understanding
and responding to water programs.
2. To have "standing arrangements for early consultation and
the exchange of views with interested or affected persons and
organizations on development or revision of plans, programs or
other significant actions prior to decision-making."
3. To maintain a current list of interested persons and
organizations to be notified, when appropriate or required by
law, concerning agency hearings, rule-making, or other
significant actions.
4-1
-------
4. To develop procedures to insure that information and evidence
concerning water programs, when submitted by citizens, will receive
proper attention. In particular, public reporting of water pollu-
tion law violations is to be encouraged.
5. To provide "full and open information on legal proceedings under
the Act" to the extent consistent with court requirements and to a
degree that does not prejudice the conduct of litigation.
6. To provide opportunities for public hearings on proposed regula- >
tions where appropriate or required by law. Public hearings should
be conducted whenever there is sufficient public interest in a
matter. Whenever doubt arises concerning the degree of public
interest, the question should be resolved in favor of a hearing, or,
if necessary, by providing an alternate opportunity for public
participation. EPA regulations on procedures for public hearings
should be followed if state agency procedures are less stringent.
(See 40 CFR 105.7 for guidelines concerning public hearings.)
The activities listed represent only the minimum steps that planning
agencies should undertake to provide for public involvement. In many
instances, however, there are alternative methods for accomplishing
this public involvement. The rest of this chapter discusses ways to
comply with these requirements through a variety of formal programs
of public participatton.
4.2 Public Participation Program Development ™
A. Public Participation in Formulating the State Continuing Planning
Process
Since the continuing planning process is the State's overall
management and decision-making framework for water quality programs,
it is important to design this process in such a way as to enable, encourage
and assist public involvement. The State must seek public reaction on the
design of this decision-making process before submitting the process.
for EPA approval. It is especially important to involve the interested
public in developing the State/EPA Agreement on level of detail and
timing for carrying out State WQM Plans, and to specify the public
involvement program that will be followed in plan development in the *
State/EPA Agreement.
B. Relationship with the State WQM Planning Process
-»
A program for public involvement must be an integral part of the
State WQM planning process and should outline the specific means for
4-2
-------
public participation at each step in the planning process. The
planning process should be designed so progression from one stage
to another cannot take place without certain well-defined inputs
from the public.
C. The Major Phases in the Planning Process
The planning process involves several general phases, although
planners may define the specific tasks within the phases somewhat
differently. The phases are important because they are the activities
around which a program of public participation should be organized.
The planning process will include the following phases.
1. Establishment of Goals and Objectives
During the first stage of plan development, the planning agency
should establish channels of communication with the public. Citizen
opinion should be sought on the following issues:
1. The identification of water quality problems and priorities
for resolving these problems.
2. The relative importance of water quality goals in relation
to other community goals.
3. The role that water quality management can or should play
in achieving community goals.
4. The use of land use controls and a regional approach to
waste treatment to protect water quality.
5. The use of land disposal and other innovative or contro-
versial pollution control technologies.
2. Design of Alternatives
Since water quality planning is but one aspect of community
planning, it is important, particularly in the design of alter-
natives, that the planning agency consider how community goals
may conflict or be compatible with water pollution control
alternatives.
Citizen views should be solicited on the compatibility of
various water pollution control approaches (municipal and indus-
trial source control, land use and land management control for
point and nonpoint sources, and control of residual waste) with
other community goals.
4-3
-------
It is also necessary to solicit public reaction to possible
management alternatives for implementing the plan. Compatibility
of the management alternatives with the following kinds of planning
and implementation agencies may be considered:
- comprehensive planning agencies;
- general purpose local governments;
- sewer districts;
- air quality control agencies;
- water quality control agencies;
- soil conservation districts;
- solid waste planning agencies;
- transportation planning agencies;
- economic development agencies;
- parks and recreation agencies.
3. Impact Assessment
Since the evaluation of certain aspects of the plan is largely
subjective, it is important that those affected-by and interested in the
plan be involved in assessing its impact. Special efforts should be made
to obtain the reaction of those individuals and institutions that
would bear the responsibility for financing, construction, opera-
tions, monitoring, and enforcement. The public should also have
the opportunity to request further study of plan impact.
4. Recommendation and Acceptance of the Final Plan
During this stage, the planning agency should consider such
factors as the attainment of additional benefits from increased
expenditures, or the minimization of undesirable social, economic,
and environmental impacts. Public comment that accurately reflects
community goals and preferences is therefore needed on plan impact.
At this stage, it is vital that elected officials who are
responsible for local approval of the recommended plan are made
aware of public comments and opinions. This is a major responsi-
bility of the entire public participation program.
5. Plan Revision
Once a plan has been selected, the public should still have the
opportunity to participate in any periodic updating of the plan.
Information should be available continually to permit evaluation of
progress made under the plan.
4-4
-------
0. Principles for Public Involvement
While there are no hard and fast rules for structuring a public
involvement program, several general principles should be kept in
mind:
1. The program should be an active program. Since the optimum
degree of public involvement will usually not occur spontaneously,
simply providing information to those who ask for it is not adequate.
An active program is needed to seek out and encourage those who can provide
useful inputs, as well as those who will be affected by the plan.
2. The program should include adequate provision for disseminating
information to the public. One of the greatest inhibitors to
active public involvement in planning programs is lack of readily
available information. To preclude this from happening, all data
and information available to planners must be easily accessible
to the public. Depositories of documents and data should be clearly
identified to the public, and should remain open for use by the
public at times that are generally convenient to the average citizen.
Assistance should be provided in locating specific documents or data
retained in the depository, reproduction equipment should be available
for use at a moderate cost. Mailing lists, newsletters, and other
publications should also be used,
3. The program should be allocated adequate time and funding within
the overall planning effort. Costs of the program should be included
in the planning budget.
4. The planning agency should designate and identify to the public
a person or persons to be directly responsible for the public involve-
ment program.
5. Elected officials and representatives of state and federal agencies
who must pass judgement on a plan should be involved in all significant
planning decisions.
6. The program should be responsive to all interested citizens. Parti-
cipation in planning should not be dominated by any one interest group
or individual. This can best be done by including without exception
in mailings, notifications, etc., all parties who express interest in
the project or who have been involved in community issues related to
water quality planning and management.
4-5
-------
4.3 A Model Program for Public Involvement
The task of providing for public participation in the planning process
is, ultimately, the job of matching specific participation activities with
specific planning tasks. There are many ways in which this matching might
occur, depending upon how agencies define their tasks in detail and which
participation activities they choose to emphasize. The following table
(pp. 4-7, 4-8), lists six categories of public participation activity which
should accompany each major phase of the planning process and matches them
with one suggested definition of planning tasks. Within each category of
participation activity will be found one, or several, suggested alternatives
for that activity.
One useful method by which planning agencies can assure compliance with
the public participation guidelines is to match the public participation
items in the table with their own definition of planning tasks. Those
responsible for assuring compliance can then "check" a participation activity
as it occurs and be sure, finally, that for each major planning task all
the major participation activities have been assured.
4.4 Institutional Alternatives for Representation of the General Public
Institutional arrangements to implement requirements for public partici-
pation are a matter of discretion, as long as the provisions made meet the
criteria of the Act and Federal regulations. However, those arrangements
chosen should:
1. Provide clearly defined channels through which citizens may contact
decision-makers and planning staff.
2. Define responsibility for actively carrying out public involvement
activities.
3. Provide adequate funding for public participation throughout the
planning process.
4. Be responsive to all interested citizens, but not dominated by any
single interest group.
Although a number of institutional arrangements may meet these
requirements, a formal mechanism to ensure full citizen understanding arid
approval of the plan will probably be necessary, given the scope and
complexity of water quality problems.
4-6
-------
ss
3>
§
c a
a c
3 c
VI <0
C u
O w
O -H
xi -a
1? c
F*4 (ri
h C
0) O
B C
rt J
88UTJB3H
a^qtssod
suoxs^oap ICUTJ
3DT30U
03 XouaSe jo
jo uoi^Baapf suog
03UB3STSSB
SOOJOJ 1JSBX
oou pw
sduojg KaoSTApy
PUB
soiao^isodap
C
P
anning
ng
nu
Cont
Process
Process Design
State /EPA
Agreement
1
2
-o
c >>
CO 3 •»->
tO O •!-
IQ
4-> r-
CO
O)
E-W
t/JC
OJ
O
l-
3
(/)O
CCO
CO
B. Sta
1
CO
C+J
oc
T-tU-
-l->>
-i
co
O •>-
-Pr—
Cn3
tOX
T3(O
S-S
(O
'Or-
CiO
(d-t->
T3
IB
O
-------
>
M
H
§
M
H
2
PAR
PUBL
a^qfssod uau/i
UOJJBUUOJUJ
r-t a
ctj C)
60 O
Jf &
SUOTSTOOp
JO
aoiqou
o
^
o
u-i
q
W
ot^qnd
sScuciu 01 XouoSc ao
•[Cnpf Afpuf .jo q , ddy
£
u J=l
O
c L
g -H
rJ O
g"
O W
•H W
*J O
nj t >
6 o
M eg
o
"SI
J-l -ttj
SWOT A
jo uoTauaopisuog
aoiqou
SOO.IOJ ^SDJ.
soa^qiimuoo ooq py
sdnoaS
S.7CUT1UOS
soijooodg
SOT.TO3 TSOdop 1?3BQ
pUB SOSBS^OJ Srt3{J
CO
T3
OI
S_+J
X3O
c (0
CTl
(0
O
O
LU
0
>OJ=
,<= o o
uiooc
•a
c
I—
CU (O
a: >
I
4-8
-------
An exemplary arrangement would be a fully-funded public participation
working group, acting in partnership with the planning staff and management
agency(s). Funds should be made available to cover the cost of printing,
announcements in the media, and other incidental expenses.
4.5 Program Evaluation
An important part of any public involvement program is a set of feed-
back mechanisms to continually monitor the success or failure of the program.
If feedback indicates ongoing efforts are inadequate, adjustments should
be made as soon as possible, so that the success of the program will not be
jeopardized. In making an evaluation, information may be drawn from a
variety of sources, including:
- nature of informal contacts initiated by the public;
- amount of interaction between the planners and the public;
- attendance at meetings and hearings;
- amount of related public-sponsored activity such as meetings,
workshops, door-to-door campaigns, etc.;
- amount and nature of media coverage;
- formal surveys.
In addition to monitoring inputs received from the public participation
program, an evaluation should also be made of the effect these inputs had on
subsequent decision-making. An effective public participation program should
be structured in such a way that the inputs received have an influence on
later decisions. Otherwise, the program is inadequate, and steps should be
taken to correct the deficiency.
4.6 Advisory Committee for Designated Areas
In compliance with Section 304(j) of P.L. 92-500, the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency has entered into an agreement with
the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Army, and Interior.
Notice of Final Agreements was published in the Federal Register, Vol. 38,
No. 225, November 23, 1973.
As a result of this agreement, the designated area planning agency must
create a policy advisory committee, with representatives of the Departments of
Agriculture, Interior, and Army invited to participate. Each Department may
or may not participate as it deems appropriate. This requirement provides for
coordination of the programs authorized under other Federal laws with water
quality planning.
Provisions should also be made for inclusion of representatives of the
general public on the policy advisory committee. The membership
may be further expanded as considered appropriate by EPA and the State. A
special effort should be made to include representatives of agencies res-
ponsible for other environmental programs being conducted in the planning
area.
4-9
-------
The requirement for State policy advisory committees is fully discusse^B
in Chapter 2.3.B. ^|
In addition to Policy Advisory Committees, citizen advisory committees
should be established. It is unlikely that adequate citizen input will be
obtained solely through the Policy Advisory Committee. Citizens can provide
valuable inputs throughout the planning process. Their participation should
be actively encouraged.
4-10
I
-------
CHAPTER 5
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
5.1 Introduction
Water quality standards are an essential part of the State water
quality management (WQM) system. The standards:
. Publicly define the State's water quality objectives, and hence
form the basis for its planning;
. Serve as the basis for determining National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit effluent limitations for
pollutants which are not specifically addressed in the effluent
guidelines or for pollutants for which the effluent guidelines
are not stringent enough to protect desired uses;
. Serve as a basis for evaluating and modifying Best Management
Practices (BMP) for control of nonpoint sources;
, Serve as a basis for judgment in other water quality related
programs, including water storage for regulation of stream flow,
water quality inventories, control of toxic substances, thermal
discharges, cooling lakes, aquaculture, and dredged and fill
activities.
. Contain the State's antidegradation policy.
A. Purpose and Applicability
The purposes of water quality standards are set forth in
Section 303 of the Act and in 40 CFR Part 130. Standards must be
reviewed and revised where appropriate at least once every three
years to assure that the standards are consistent with the Act
and regulations.
5-1
-------
Water quality standards must apply to all surface water of
the United States, including the territorial seas. In addition,
they must be applicable to all sources of pollutants. Provisions
in the standards which directly or indirectly exempt any class
of sources, such as nonpoint sources, are not allowable. These
guidelines, however, provide for methods to deal with exceptional
situations (e.g. extreme high or low flow conditions).
EPA strongly supports the establishment of water quality
standards which will support the protection and propagation of ^
fish, shellfish and wildlife and recreation in and on the water.
In furtherance of this objective, EPA believes that water quality
standards should be established at levels consistent with the
national water quality goal of section 101(a)(2) of the Act for
every stream segment wherever those levels are attainable.
B. Scope of State Review and Revision of Water Quality Standards
Portions of existing water quality standards may be adequate
and may require no revision. Hence, the State will only have to
concentrate on those standards that are inadequate. Revisions most
probably will be needed in three key areas:
1. Uses—must be upgraded wherever 1983 national water quality
goal uses are not designated and higher uses are attainable;
2. Criteria—new criteria should be added and existing criteria •
modified as necessary to support the use, particularly in the
area of toxic pollutants; and
3. Antidegradation—revision of antidegradation policies is
likely to be required.
In addition, in its review and revision process, the State must
assure that its water quality standards provide for the attainment
of the water quality standards of downstream water (Sl30.17(c)(4)).
C. General Content of State Hater Quality Standards
A centralized State water quality standards document must contain «
at a minimum, the following components:
1. Certification that the standards are included within State
law;
2. Statement of general policy consistent with 40 CFR §130.17;
3. Statement of applicability of water quality standards,
including the State's mixing zone policy;
4. Definitions;
5. A listing of the use designations for all the waters of the
State, including any site specific water quality criteria for
specific segments.
5-2
-------
6. Water quality criteria that define the conditions necessary
to maintain the beneficial water use designations;
7. An antidegradation statement;
8. Specifications of statistical requirements and reference
to analytical testing and sampling procedures to determine if
standards are being met; and
9. A listing of outstanding national resource waters.
In addition, it is recommended that the standards document contain
maps delineating stream segments which can be clearly referenced
to the stream use designation list.
Where water quality standards are developed Statewide they must
be incorporated by reference into the individual State WQM plans.
Where water quality standards are developed for a planning area
through the State WQM process, any or all of the above components
can be incorporated by reference in the centralized State water
quality standards document. Identification of the State WQM plan
that contains the standards and the date of adoption and EPA
approval of the water quality standards contained within the plan
must be included.
0. Relationship to the State WQM Process
The State WQM process must contain mechanisms, including
public participation, to conduct water quality standards reviews
and revisions. By conducting standards reviews as a part of
the State WQM process, States can assure that standards are an
essential component of the overall State water quality planning
and management program. The State WQM process may itself result
in recommending revisions to water quality standards.
Water quality standards, once approved or promulgated, are to
be included as an element of the State WQM plan ($131.11(e)) and
are to be implemented through the State's WQM process. Water
quality standards play a key role in the State WQM process by
setting the goals for plan development and implementation and
providing information necessary to complete other outputs of the
State WQM program. In turn, the State WQM process is the vehicle
for coordinating actions leading to water quality standards imple-
mentation. All aspects of the process are directed to achievement
of standards.
5-3
-------
The NPDES permits issued pursuant to Section 402 of the Act
and nonpoint source regulatory program controls (BMP) implemented
pursuant to Sections 208, 303(e) and 313 of the Act must be con-
sistent with the State WQM process. Together, point and nonpoint
source controls must result in the achievement and maintenance of
water quality standards.
If a violation of water quality standards can be shown to be
attributable to pollution from a particular point source or group
of sources then effluent limitations must be imposed. (8301(b)(l)(C)
of the Act.)
As no uniform or national BMP for nonpoint sources is mandated
under the Act, the level of BMP control may differ from area to area.
Water quality standards will serve as a basis for evaluating and
modifying BMP's for control of nonpoint sources. If water quality
standards violations attributable to nonpoint sources continue after
BMP's are implemented, the BMP's must be modified where practicable
to control specifically those pollutants responsible for the violations
In some cases, even the reconsidered BMP's may not be sufficient to
stop the nonpoint source related water quality standards violations.
These violations may be continuous or rainfall related. If the 1983
goal uses and associated criteria are not being achieved., and cannot
be achieved through application of modified BMP's, then limited
spatial and temporal exceptions can be granted under certain condi-
tions (see the discussion on irretrievable man-induced conditions
on p. 5-7 and mixing zones on p. 5-16). All exceptions must be
reexamined every three years during the water quality standards
reviews to determine if new nonpoint source control technologies or
strategies that have been developed can restore the excepted waters.
5.2 Water Uses
A. Use Designation and Regulatory Requirements
The regulations (S130.17(c)(2)-(3)) provide the following:
"(2) The State shall maintain those water uses which are
currently being attained. Where existing water quality
standards specify designated water uses less than those
which are presently being achieved, the State shall upgrade
its standards to reflect the uses actually being attained.
"(3) At a minimum, the State shall maintain those water
uses which are currently designated in water quality stan-
dards, effective as of the date of these regulations or as
5-4
-------
subsequently modified in accordance with S130.17(c)(l) and
(2). The State may establish less restrictive uses than
those contained in existing water quality standards, however,
only where the State can demonstrate that:
(i) The existing designated use is not attainable
because of natural background;
(ii) The existing designated use is not attainable
because of irretrievable man-induced conditions; or
(iii) Application of effluent limitations for existing
sources more stringent than those required pursuant to
Section 301(b)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act in order to
attain the existing designated use would result in sub-
stantial and widespread adverse economic and social
impact."
The States must review their water quality standards and revise
them as appropriate. The review must include standards for all
waters and revisions must be consistent with the following:
1. Public health must be protected for all waters;
2. The national water quality goal uses of protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and recreation in
and on the water must be designated in the standards for all
waters, wherever attainable, including those segments where
they are not currently being attained instream. (The meaning
of the term "attainable" is discussed under Ch. 5.2(C)--Exceptions
to Designating National Goal Water Uses.)
3. Where current water quality conditions support a higher use
than that for which a segment is presently classified, standards
for that segment must be upgraded to include the higher use;
and
4. Water quality standards must provide for the attainment of
the water quality standards assigned to downstream waters.
In some cases it may be appropriate to provide for seasonal use
designations where uses are not attainable on a year round basis.
Fo;r example, intermittent streams that are dry in the summer might
qualify for seasonal designations. However, seasonal uses are
not appropriate where the effects of the discharge of pollutants
might preclude uses in other seasons.
5-5
-------
B. Maintenance of Existing Uses
Each beneficial water use which is currently being achieved
must be included in the use designations (§130.17(c)(2)). There
are no provisions for exceptions to this requirement. Beneficial
uses include such uses as protection and propagation of aquatic
life, recreation in and on the water, public water supplies, agri-
cultural and industrial water supplies, and navigational uses.
Waste assimilation and waste transport* are not approvable use
designations. The State's antidegradation policy and procedures
must assure maintenance of existing uses.
C. Exceptions to Designating National Goal Water Uses
Where a national water quality goal use, as specified by
Section 101(a)(2) of the Act, is determined to be unattainable, the
exception should be confined to a carefully limited geographic area.
The lowered use in that area must not result in the loss of an
existing or potential use elsewhere. In most cases, the unattaina-
bility of the use should be permitted to occur only in the near term,
and specific criteria should be adopted which will lead in the
direction of early future designation of the use. Where primary
water contact recreation is not attainable, but secondary contact
recreation is attainable, the latter use should be designated.
Exceptions must be reviewed as part of the three year water
quality standards review and removed if the previously designated
uses become attainable. National water quality goal uses must then
be designated.
The Regional Administrator has authority to approve any proposed
State water quality standards. He is also responsible for reviewing
existing and proposed standards which do not include designated uses
consistent with the national water quality goal. The Regional
Administrator, where appropriate, will request additional information
from the State to evaluate the basis for establishing uses at levels
less stringent than the national water quality goal.
The following guidance provides direction on EPA policy for
considering lesser uses than those associated with the national
water quality goal.
1. Determinations for Upgrading Existing Designated Uses
Waters that are currently designated for uses which require
water quality lower than that necessary to maintain the national
water quality goal uses must be upgraded wherever attainable.
The State should take into account environmental, technological
* The term "waste transport" is not meant to apply to transportation of
wastes by ship or barge.
5-6
-------
social, economic and institutional factors, but it must upgrade
standards in the following circumstances:
a. Where existing standards specify uses lower than those
actually being achieved instream;
b. Where existing water quality will improve as a result
of current technology-based control measures (BATEA and
BPWTT) being applied, and a higher use can be anticipated;
and
c. Where existing water quality standards specify uses or
criteria that will not provide protection for uses presently
achieved or to be achieved in downstream waters.
2. Determinations for Downgrading Existing Designated Uses
Waters that are currently designated for national water
quality goal uses may not be downgraded unless the State can
demonstrate in writing that one of the conditions set forth below
exist (§130.17(c)(3)). Any downgradings must also be consistent
with the antidegradation policy (Section 5.4). Any downgrading
is subject to the approval of the Regional Administrator.
a. The use cannot be attained because of natural background
conditions
This basis for an exception should have limited applica-
tion. It should be recognized that most water bodies have
some communities of fish, shellfish and wildlife. However,
examples of natural background conditions which may preclude
the aquatic life use include streams with leachate from
natural heavy metal deposits and streams with natural
ephemeral, intermittent or low flow conditions.
b. The use cannot be attained because of irretrievable
man-induced conditions
Man has changed his environment from that which occurred
historically. This basis for an exception applies only to
irretrievable losses of national water quality goal uses
that have occurred in the past.
The term "irretrievable" in the context of these guide-
lines means that the past loss of a national water quality
goal use, due to man's modification of his environment, is
considered permanent or incapable of being restored or
regained.
5-7
-------
Three primary situations may qualify a specific segment
for an exception:
(1) Where the national water quality goal use is not
being achieved due to nonpoint source pollution that
cannot be abated with application of BMP's or BMP's modified
to meet water quality standards and the activity or change
in land use is determined by the affected public to be
essential.
(2) Where the national water quality goal use is not
being achieved due to hydrological modifications that
cannot be removed or operated in such a manner as to
restore the use.
(3) Where the national water quality goal use is not
being achieved due to deposition of instream toxicants
due to man's past point or nonpoint source activities
and such deposits are not capable of being removed by
natural processes over an appropriate planning period
(usually 20 years) and are not capable of being removed
by man without a severe long-term environmental impact.
This basis for an exception must not be used to waive water
quality requirements with respect to individual point or nonpoint
sources where control methods or reasonable alternative control
strategies are available. It is important to remember that
natural nrocesses may require many years to undo the damage that
man has caused. Since the water quality standards uses and
criteria provide a legal mechanism for imposition of controls,
downgrading national water quality goal uses may allow continued
abuse and natural recovery will be precluded.
c. The use cannot be attained because the imposition of
controls above or in addition to the technology-based require-
ments of BATEA* and BPWTT** would be required and would result
in a substantial and widespread adverse economic and social
impact
The Regional Administrator will carefully review the
State's determination of what constitutes a substantial and
widespread impact and warrants an exemption from designating
*Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (S301(b)(2){A))
**Best Practicable Wastewater Treatment Technology (S301(b)(2)(B))
5-8
-------
the use. However, at a minimum, all three of the following
situations must be present:
(1) Imposition of controls above or in addition to
BATEA and BPWTT would be required even though BMP's
will be implemented;
(2) The adverse economic and social impacts resulting
specifically from imposition of the controls, and
reflected in primary and secondary unemployment impacts,
plant closures, changes in governmental fiscal base,
and other area economic indicators, are substantial
and widespread in comparison to other economic factors
affecting the area's economy, to national economic
conditions and fluctuations, and can be expected to
persist for periods longer than provided for by adjust-
ment payments such as unemployment compensation; and
they are detectable in an area appropriate for measure-
ment, at least as large as a county or SMSA and, if
appropriate, any larger economic areas such as defined
by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of
Commerce. In making a determination of substantial
impact, the positive economic and social impact of
enhanced water quality must be evaluated.
5.3 Water Quality Criteria
State water quality standards must contain water quality criteria
which define the conditions necessary to maintain and protect the desig-
nated water uses. Narrative and numerical criteria should be adopted
that will provide the best management basis for control of water pollution
and maintenance of high quality waters. Numerical criteria are preferred
because they are more easily interpreted in defining specific control
requirements, but narrative criteria are useful also.
When a water use classification is changed, corresponding criteria
changes must also be made. Where waters are designated for multiple uses,
the standards must provide that the most stringent criterion for each
parameter will be applicable. Even when an existing use classification
is acceptable, criteria may require revision in the light of new know-
ledge concerning human health and aquatic life needs. Changes may also
be required in response to specific determinations made pursuant to
Section 316(a) of the Act.
5-9
-------
In keeping with established EPA policy:
. Numerical criteria should be stated wherever possible;
. Biological or bioassay criteria should be employed where
numerical values are not practicable provided that the criteria
are described with enough detail to be implementable. Bioassay
criteria, for example, should specify those species to be
used in particular waters and guidance should be given on how
to use the results to draft permit conditions or modify BMP's;
and
. Narrative criteria should be employed where other values cannot
be established or to supplement numerical values. Narrative
criteria should include detail sufficient to show clearly the
quality of the water intended, so that NPDES permit conditions
and nonpoint source control requirements (BMP's) can be
developed or modified based on the criteria.
Seasonal uses and criteria should be adopted wherever necessary
and appropriate. For example, where waters are used for propagation by
certain species only during certain periods of the year and such species
propagation requires higher levels of dissolved oxygen and/or lower
temperatures than otherwise necessary to protect the species, the
adopted criteria should include such higher dissolved oxygen levels
and/or lower temperatures for the periods when they are needed. Another
example might be an intermittent stream during periods when no water
is present in the stream bed. In this case special criteria or use
designations may be appropriate.
For any segment which provides habitat for any threatened or
endangered species identified pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
(P. L. 93-205), water quality standards must be adopted which will
protect such species and preclude the destruction or modification of
the critical habitat of those species identified as critical. Water
quality standards must also describe the water quality necessary to
assure the protection and propagation of protected species described
pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (P. L. 92-522), the
Migratory Bird Conservation Act (P. L. 70-257), and the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 701-711).
A. Numerical Mater Quality Criteria
The Administrator's Quality Criteria for Water document
published under Section 304(a) of the Act will represent normally
5-10
-------
acceptable levels of water quality to support the related use.
While the Section 304(a) document will serve as the basic refer-
ence, other publications that define water quality criteria may
also be applicable.
Specific numerical criteria generally should be adopted for
those parameters which represent serious existing or potential water
quality problems in the State. The adoption of numerical values
for toxic substances is particularly important, to insure protection
of the highest uses and to provide a water quality basis for control
for these substances. Site specific circumstances may permit less
restrictive criteria or require stricter limits for specific para-
meters than those contained in the Section 304(a) document.
Establishment of a numerical value for a criterion at a less
stringent level than that recommended in the Section 304(a) docu-
ment should be accompanied by an adequate technical justification
to the Regional Administrator. Pursuant to the authority contained
in Section 510 of the Act, States may, of course, adopt more strin-
gent water quality criteria or water uses than that recommended by
EPA.
The Administrator will periodically modify or add to the criteria
developed under Section 304(a). Such changes should be considered
for adoption by the States during their next regularly scheduled
standards review following the change.
For numerical criteria, the statistical requirements for data
interpretation and sampling must be stated, for purposes of applying
and enforcing standards. Mean and maximum concentrations should be
stated where appropriate. The time, place, method and duration of
sampling should be identified or referenced as a part of the water
quality standards to assure comparable results. In general, sampling
locations and times should be based on critical conditions or alter-
natively should attempt to characterize the spatial or temporal
distribution of the pollutant or environmental parameter. All methods
of sample collection, preservation, and analysis used in applying
the standards should be in accord with those prescribed in 40 CFR
Part 136.
Revised water quality-standards criteria will need to reflect the
conditions in individual areas. Some degree of instream biological
monitoring will often be necessary, both for establishing the standards
and in reviewing the effect of their implementation.
5-11
-------
Criteria also may be expressed in terms of biological parameters
such as bioassay or species diversity requirements provided that
such criteria ar^e stated in, a manner that will support specific
conforming control measures to be assigned on a case-by-case basis.
An example of a biological criterion might be the prohibition of
any deviation outside the range of normal variability for a given
species diversity index. Modeling techniques generally are not
sophisticated enough to relate a percent loss of diversity to a
percent reduction in pollutants so wasteload allocations will need
to be established based on best judgment as to cause and effect.
The State may elect to adopt 304(a) criteria by means of
incorporation by reference, if State law authorizes that device.
In that case, certain procedures should be followed to avoid con-
fusion. First, the State should carefully identify the criteria
being adopted (parameter and associated use) and the document
being referenced (i.e. citation of 304(a) criteria document and
date of publication). In addition, the State should explain what
criteria will apply in the event that the incorporated materials
are revised following adoption of the standards. Presumably, the
State will specify that the incorporated criteria will continue
to apply until the next State standards review, in order to assure
compliance with State requirements for due process, including
public hearings on revisions to standards. Finally, the State
should specify the location or locations within the State where
the criteria which have been incorporated by reference will be
reasonably available to the public for inspection and copying.
B. Narrative Water Quality Criteria
States should provide in the water quality standards that all
waters must meet the State's general narrative criteria. EPA
recommends language consistent with that below:
All waters shall be free from substances attributable to man-
caused point source or nonpoint source discharges in concentrations
that:
1. Settle to form objectionable deposits;
2. Float as debris, scum, oil or other matter to form nuisances;
3. Produce objectionable color, odor, taste, or turbidity;
4. Injure, are toxic to or produce adverse physiological or
behavior responses in humans, animals or plants; or
5. Produce undesirable aquatic life or result in the dominance
of nuisance species.
5-12
-------
These general narrative criteria can be used as a basis for
contr&l activities. Ecological principles and biological monitoring
techniques can be used to quantitatively define violations of most
of these narrative criteria. If it can be shown that harm has
been caused to the balanced community of fish, shellfish and wild-
life in the vicinity of a discharge due to settleable solids, for
example, then those deposits can be termed objectionable and
measures can be taken to restrict the discharge of settleable
solids. Bioassays can be used to determine compliance with the
narrative prohibition on toxicity. Guidance for applying some of
these techniques can be found in the draft Section 316(a) guidance
manual dated September 30, 1974.
The aesthetic criteria are harder to quantify in terms of
violation. Photographic records or public complaints can provide
a good indication of problems. If the source of such violation
can be identified, control actions can be imposed by the regulatory
agency based on such observations.
5.4 Antidegradation
A. General
Each State must develop and adopt (or retain) a Statewide anti-
degradation policy in the water quality standards and identify
methods for its implementation through other components of the
State WQM process in accordance with S130.17(e). At a minimum the
policy should contain the following components:
1. In all cases, existing instream beneficial water uses must
be maintained and protected. Any actions that would intefere
with or become injurious to existing uses cannot be undertaken.
Waste assimilation and transport are not recognized beneficial
uses;
2. Existing high quality waters must be maintained at their
existing high quality unless the State decides to allow
limited degradation where economically or socially justified.
If limited degradation is allowed, it cannot result in viola-
tion of water quality criteria that describe the base levels
necessary to sustain the national water quality goal uses of
protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and
recreation in and on the water;
3. In all cases, high quality waters which constitute an out-
standing national resource must be maintained and protected;
5-13
-------
4. Any determinations concerning thermal discharge limitations
under Section 316(a) of the Act will be considered to be in
compliance with the antidegradation policy.
High quality waters consist of those waters at or above the
minimum levels necessary to achieve the national water quality goal
uses.
Existing approved antidegradation statements consistent with
S130.17(e) may be retained, but procedures for implementation must
be established through the State WQM process. The process will
enable the State to determine on a case-by-case basis whether
and to what extent water quality may be lowered consistent with
§130.17.
B. Public and Intergovernmental Review
The State WQM process must provide that whenever an activity is
proposed which may degrade existing high quality waters, the State
will assure that there is adequate public and intergovernmental
participation in accordance with section 5.11.C. of this Chapter.
Where the public and intergovernmental response, taken as a
whole, clearly opposes a proposed degradation, the State must give
serious consideration to that response and may not allow the pro-
posed degradation activity unless a substantial and convincing
justification for the activity has been presented.
C. National Resource Waters
Waters which constitute an outstanding national resource may
not be degraded. At a minimum, waters in National and State
parks, wildlife refuges and waters of exceptional recreational
or ecological significance (for example, waters which provide a
unique habitat for an identified threatened or endangered species
or rivers designated under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act)
should be considered as outstanding national resource waters. The
State's intergovernmental review notice (see section .5.11.C) should
include notice to the Federal, State, or other agencies responsible
for administration of the waters or other resource involved. Such
notice should specifically call attention to the possible character-
ization of the waters in question as an outstanding national resource.
EPA recommends that each State include in its water quality
standards an initial listing of the outstanding national resource
5-14
-------
waters of the State. Such a list would provide a ready identification
of such waters. The possibility of additions or deletions from time
to time should be expected.
D. Antidegradation and Growth
National antidegradation requirements should not be viewed as
a "no growth" rule. Where the State intends to provide for further
development, the State WQM process should evaluate the alternative
measures which can be taken to preserve water quality at the levels
required by 5130.17. The evaluation must take into account the
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the water.
Examples of some techniques that can be used by the States
include:
1. Designing wasteload allocations to accommodate new sources,
via reduction in current source loadings;
2. Restricting any new discharge of pollutants from new and
existing sources;
3. Restricting any increase in pollutants discharged from
existing sources;
4. Adopting a no mixing zone policy, thus requiring safe
concentrations to be met at the end of the pipe;
5. Requiring land disposal for new projects; and
6. Requiring new nonpoint source activities to demonstrate no
permanent adverse impact on water quality.
E. Optional State Actions
The State's antidegradation policy is to be designed for the
protection of existing water quality. Use designations should not
be an issue, since the specific water quality standards should
always, at a minimum, designate existing beneficial uses. The
State's water quality standards for high quality waters may, within
the constraints and limitations of monitoring practicability, set
forth the existing water quality of a segment. Thus, the State may
adopt specific criteria at existing levels measured in the segment,
even though such levels may be more stringent than the Section 304(a)
criteria minimum levels for given uses. Documentation of existing
water quality may be useful in the State WQM process as a baseline
against which any future degradation could be measured.
5-15
-------
F. Federal Review of Antidegradation Policies and Actions
The State's antidegradation statement and implementing pro-
cedures, as a part of its water quality standards and WQM process,
are subject to the Regional Administrator's review and approval.
EPA encourages submittal of this statement and implementing pro-
cedures to the Regional Administrator for pre-adoption review so
that the State may take EPA comments into account prior to final
adoption.
5.5 Mixing Zones
A. General
A limited mixing zone, serving as a zone of initial dilution
in the immediate area of a point or nonpoint source of pollution,
may be allowed. Establishing a mixing zone policy is a matter of
State discretion. Such a policy, however, must be consistent with
the Act and is subject to the approval of the Regional Administrator.
Careful consideration must be given to the appropriateness of a
mixing zone where a substance discharged is bioaccummulative and
persistent or carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic. In such
cases the State must consider the ecological and human health effects
of assigning a mixing zone including such effects as bioconcentration
in sediments and aquatic biota, bioaccummulation in the food chains,
and the known or predicted safe exposure levels for the substance.
In some instances, the ecological and human health effects may be
so adverse that a mixing zone is not appropriate.
B • Def.1Tlition_of Al 1 owabl e Mi xi ng Zones
Water quality standards should describe the State's methodology
for determining the location, size, shape, outfall design and in-zone
quality of mixing zones, with sufficient precision to support such
regulatory actions as issuance of permits and determination of BMP's
for nonpoint sources. Specifications should relate to the individual
water body. EPA recommends the following:
5-16
-------
1. Location. Biologically important areas are to be identified
and protected. Where necessary to preserve the zone of passage
for migrating fish or other organisms in a water course, the
standards should specifically identify the portion of the
waters to be kept free from mixing zones.
2. Size. Various methods and techniques for defining the surface
area and the volume of mixing zones for various types of waters
have been formulated. Methods which result in quantitative
measures sufficient for permit actions and which protect the
designated uses of the water body as a whole are acceptable.
The area or volume of an individual zone or group of zones must
be limited to an area or volume that will not interfere with the
designated uses or with the established community of aquatic life
in the segment for which the uses are designated. The State WQM
process growth projections should be taken into account in setting
the total mixing zone size for the water course.
3. Shape. The shape of a mixing zone should be a simple configura-
tion that is easy to locate in the body of water and that avoids
impingement on biologically important areas. A circle with a
specified radius is generally preferable, but other shapes may be
specified in the case of unusual site requirements. "Shore-
hugging" plumes should be avoided.
4. Outfall Design. Prior to designating any mixing zone, the
State should assure that the design and location of the existing
or proposed outfall provides maximum protection of aquatic resources.
5. In-zone Quality. Water quality standards should provide that
all mixing zones conform with the following requirements. Any mixing
zone should be free of point or nonpoint source related:
(a) Materials in concentrations that exceed the 96-hour
LC50 for biota significant to the indigenous aquatic community;
(b) Materials in concentrations that settle to form objec-
tionable deposits;
(c) Floating debris, oil, scum and other matter in concentra-
tions that form nuisances;
5-17
-------
(d) Substances in concentrations that produce objec-
tlonable color* odor, taste or turbidity; and
(e) Substances in concentrations which produce undesirable
aquatic life or result in a dominance of nuisance species.
C. Mixing Zones for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material
EPA, in conjunction with the Department of the Army, has dev-
eloped interim guidelines to be applied in evaluating the discharge
of dredged or fill material in navigable waters. (See 40 CFR
Part 230, Federal Register, September 5, 1975.) The interim
guidelines include provisions for determining the acceptability
of mixing discharge zones (S230.5(e)). The particular pollutants
involved should be evaluated carefully in establishing dredging
mixing zones. Dredged spoil discharges generally result in a
temporary short-term disruption and do not represent a continuous
discharge of materials that will affect beneficial uses over a
long period of time. A limited disposal operation whose primary
pollutant is inert suspended solids may qualify for a mixing zone
more readily than an operation discharging toxic pollutants. The
potential for long-term disruption of beneficial uses should be
the primary consideration in establishing mixing zones for dredged
and fill activities. State water quality standards should reflect
these principles if mixing zones for dredging activities are
referenced.
D. Mixing Zones for Aquaculture Projects
The Administrator is authorized, after public hearings, to
permit certain discharges associated with approved aquaculture
projects (Section 318 of the Act). The regulations relating to
aquaculture (40 CFR Part 115, proposed June 7, 1974) provide in
part (8115.10(a)) that the aquaculture project must not result in
a violation of standards outside of the project area, and project
approval must not result in the enlargement of any previously
approved mixing zone. In addition, the aquaculture regulations
provide that designated projected areas must not include so large
a portion of the body of water that a substantial portion of the
indigenous biota will be exposed to the conditions within the
designated project area (S115.10(e)). Areas designated for approved
aquaculture projects should be treated in the same manner as other
mixing zones. Special allowances should not be made for these
areas.
5-18
-------
5.6 Thermal Water Quality Standards
Water Quality standards relating to heat are required by
Section 303(g) of the Act to be consistent with the requirements of
Section 316 of the Act. In keeping with the provisions of Section 303
and Section 316:
. Water quality standards relating to thermal criteria must
assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous
population consistent with Section 316.
. In areas in which a point source is entitled to the temporary
immunities of Section 316(c), water quality standards should be
established without regard to such immunity, but the standards
may not serve as a basis for imposing effluent limitations on
such source during the period of its immunity.
5.7 Water Quality Related Effluent Limitations Under Section 302
of the Act (Reserved,)
5.8 Stream Flows
A. Intermittent Streams
Water quality criteria should be adopted for intermittent
streams to the extent necessary to assure that conditions in the
streams or stream beds will not impair existing or designated uses
in the stream or in downstream waters.
5-19
-------
B. Low Flow
Water quality standards should protect water quality for
designated uses in critical low flow situations, and individual
sources or categories of sources should not be categorically exempted
from compliance with such standards during critical low flow periods.
Waste!oad allocations for the achievement of water quality
standards may be based on a specified low flow which can be regarded
as the critical low flow. This critical low flow must be estab-
lished at a level which assures protection of beneficial uses'desig-
nated in standards. In many cases, this will be the average seven-
day low flow which occurs once in ten years. In extreme situations
where flow falls below the critical low flow, the usually applicable
standards may be violated. As an alternative to a critical! low
flow, States may adopt special low flow standards or policies to be
met seasonally or at all times regardless of low conditions. Examples
of situations where this may be appropriate include streams which are
of a natural ephemeral or intermittent nature or streams where an
endangered species is present and special standards are necessary to
protect the species and its habitat.
The State WQM process should be designed to minimize the effect
of conditions which may result from point source discharges or storm
related nonpoint source runoff during low flow periods. For example,
the WQM process may identify the need for NPDES permit conditions,
such as higher treatment levels or reduced discharge volumes necessary
to avoid or mitigate severe and long-lasting water quality impacts
during critical periods. Seasonal limitations may be included, such
as requiring seasonal control of certain pollutants during critical
months.
In addition, the State WQM process may identify special procedures
to be available to prevent major impacts as a result of low flow
periods. Responses may include release of impounded waters, effluent
or storm water storage or modification of industrial production
schedules.
C. High Flow
Water quality standards should protect water quality in critical
high flow situations, and individual sources or categories of sources,
such as nonpoint sources, should not be categorically exempted from
compliance with water quality standards.
The State WQM process should minimize the effects of conditions
which may result during high flow periods. For example, permit
conditions and BMP's for nonpoint sources should anticipate periods
of critical high flow. Many types of nonpoint source problems are
most intense during and after periods of precipitation, when flows
are higher than at other times.
5-20
-------
Extreme high flow, like extreme low flow, is not a required
design criterion for sources severely affected by the extreme con-
ditions. However, permits and nonpoint source controls should
assure that in extreme high flow situations, man-induced incremental
pollution will not result in severe and long-lasting water quality
impacts. It may be appropriate for States to adopt specific stan-
dards to be met at all times, regardless of flow.
In addition, the State WQM process may identify special proce-
dures to be available to prevent major impacts as a result of high
flow periods. Responses may include curtailment of point source
discharges, if appropriate, or other feasible and useful measures.
D. Regulated Flow
Flow augmentation and regulation is not a substitute for
adequate treatment or control of pollutant sources, but may be an
important consideration in WQM. Minimum flow rates for regulated
waters should be specified in State water quality standards where
necessary to protect and attain the appropriate beneficial uses
of any waters.
5.9 Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material
As stated in section 5.5 of this Chapter, EPA has published
interim guidelines to be applied in evaluating activities involving
the discharge of dredged materials or fill material in navigable waters
(40 CFR Part 230). Appropriate water quality standards must be consid-
ered when discharging dredged or fill material. The interim guidelines
provide that:
"After application of the approaches presented in §230.4, the
District Engineer will compare the concentrations of appropriate
constitutents to applicable narrative and numerical guidance con-
tained in such water quality standards as are applicable by law.
In the event that such discharge would cause a violation of such
appropriate and legally applicable standards at the perimeter of
the disposal site after consideration of the mixing zone, dis-
charge shall be prohibited." (40 CFR S230.4-2.)
5-21
-------
In addition the interim guidelines provide that:
"In evaluating whether to permit a proposed discharge of dredged
or fill material into navigable waters, consideration shall be
given to the need for the proposed activity, the availability of
alternative sites and methods of disposal that are less damaging
to the environment, and such water quality standards as are
appropriate and applicable by law."
5.10 Groundwater
EPA recommends that States adopt water quality standards to protect
the underground waters of the State. Such standards are not a Federal
requirement; however, standards for groundwater are particularly desir-
able to protect waters which are a present or potential public drinking
water supply source or have particular ecological or hydrographic
significance.
5.11 State Water Quality Standards Review and Revision Procedures^
A general description of the relationship between the Standards
Review Process and State WQM Process is provided in Chapter 2.3.E
("Review/Revision of Water Quality Standards and Definition of Anti-
degradation Policy"). See also Chapter 3.6.C.2 ("Specify Water
Quality Standards and Anti degradation Policy"). The interdependency
of the State WQM process and standards review/ revision process makes it
necessary to initiate both activities within the same time frame, com-
mencing with certain simplifying assumptions and proceeding later to
more appropriate refinement in both areas.
State water quality standards consist of water quality standards
which are approved or promulgated by the EPA pursuant to Section 303
of the Act and consist of designated beneficial uses, water quality
criteria to support those uses, anti degradation policy, and implementa-
tion plans established pursuant to Section 303(a) and (b).
A. Relationship to State WQM Process
40 CFR S130.10(c)(5) requires State water quality standards to
be reviewed and revised in time to impact 1977-1983 management and
regulatory decisions. This is imperative for State water quality
standards to be a meaningful tool in pollution abatement. In this
anticipates amending 40 CFR Part 120 to set forth the procedures
for State review and revision and EPA approval and promulgation of water
quality standards.
5-22
-------
next three-year period of statutory mandated review/revision
activities, revisions to standards which are adopted should be
submitted to the Regional Administrator by January 1, 1977, to
comply with 40 CFR S130.10(c)(5). The January 1 deadline will
assure that standards revisions will be approved or disapproved
and appropriate promulgation action taken in time to do the
following:
1. Set the objectives for the initial WQM plans which,
by court order, are due November 1, 1978.
2. Provide the necessary information for establishing water
quality related effluent limitations in the second round of
permits.
The State/EPA agreement on timing and level of detail for the
development of State WQM plans (40 CFR 5130.11) should provide
for the completion of standards revisions in time to meet
40 CFR S130.10(c)(5) requirements. The State's schedule and
milestones for reviewing and revising standards required pursuant
to 40 CFR S130.10(c) must contain:
1. An identification of each designated areawide planning
agency in the State which is involved in developing water quality
standards recommendations and the date by which such agency is
expected to make its recommendations to the State WQM agency.
2. The date when the State intends to submit its proposed
water quality standards revisions to the Regional Administrator.
3. A list of the public hearings which are expected to be held
on the existing and proposed standards and the tentative dates
for such hearings.
4. The projected dates when revisions to water quality standards
will be adopted and submitted to the Regional Administrator.
B. Proposed Revisions
States should work closely with their Regional Offices in dev-
eloping proposed revisions to standards. Such a relationship will
facilitate the development of proposed, revisions which meet the
requirements of the Act and expedite the Agency review process.
5-23
-------
Each State should submit three copies of Its proposed water
quality standards revisions to the Regional Administrator and
Identify the proposed changes or additions in the submittal. The
Regional Administrator may submit comments to the State on the
proposed revisions if comments would be beneficial.
C. Public Participation and Intergovernmental Coordination
The States should provide for maximum public participation and
Intergovernmental coordination 1n the standards review/revision
process. Public hearings are a mandatory requirement of the pro-
cess. All such activities should be conducted as a part of the
State WQM process. The guidelines on public participation in
Chapter 4 set forth the need and legal requirements for public
participation and contain the principles for structuring public
involvement.
The objective of the public participation and intergovernmental
coordination requirements is to involve the public and government
institutions in the review and revision of existing State water
quality standards in a meaningful way. They can make valuable
contributions toward establishing overall water quality goals and
expectations for the State. The public and government institutions
also can play a key role in developing the public support that
will ultimately lead to acceptance and implementation of the stan-
dards and achievement of the national water quality goal specified
in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act.
In providing for public participation and intergovernmental
response, the requirements in 40 CFR Part 105 are applicable. Such
requirements include but are not limited to the following:
1. A notice of the public hearing(s) must be published which
includes:
a. Time and location of hearing;
b. Hearing agenda;
c. Notification of the availability of a Fact Sheet as
required under Part 105.7(f). The sheet must outline the
major issues to be discussed, relevant tentative State staff
reports on standards, determinations on proposed revisions,
and any additional information the public should be aware
of prior to the hearing which is germane to the issues; and
d. The location where reports, documents, and data to be
discussed at the hearing are available for public inspection.
5-24
-------
2. Notice of the public hearing must be mailed to interested
and affected persons and organizations including private and
Government organizations and individuals who have filed with
he State requesting such notices. Notice of hearings must
also be mailed to downstream States and Federal and State
agencies which are affected or potentially could be affected
by existing State water quality standards or proposed revisions
thereto.
The hearing notice(s) should solicit comments and provide oppor-
tunity for public comment. The State must prepare transcripts of
the hearing(s) or a summary which must be available for inspection
by the Regional Administrator and the public.
To facilitate EPA review of existing or revised State water
quality standards, States should supply the Agency with any docum-
entation or information on review/revision activities which is
requested. A central file containing information documenting
review/revision activities should be maintained. Such a file is
helpful in answering information requests by the Agency and public.
Documentation may be needed by EPA to assess whether existing
or revised State water quality standards meet the requirements of
the Act. Examples include the rationale for:
1. Why standards for a segment were not revised;
2. Why a particular criterion was not adopted; or
3. Why data or other information was or was not considered in
reviewing or revising State water quality standards.
D. Submittal of State Adopted Revisions
The Governor or his designee should submit to the Regional
Administrator three copies of revisions to State water quality
standards which are adopted. The submittal should also include
the following information which will be helpful in reviewing the
revisions and determining whether the revisions meet the require-
ments of the Act:
1. A statement by the State Attorney General or other appropriate
legal authority within the State that the revised water quality
5-25
-------
standards were duly adopted by the State and are included
within State law. (Note that standards are an element of the
State WQM plan and regulatory programs implementing the plan
must assure that water quality standards are met (see 40 CFR
Part 130). It is through these regulatory mechanisms that
standards are enforced under State law.)
2. The identification of specific water segments which have
water uses in the revised water quality standards which are at
the national water quality goal levels or which are less
restrictive than the national water quality goal uses.
A "less restrictive use" for the purpose of Part 120 is a
use which requires a lower level of water quality to be main-
tained and protected.
3. The identification of the specific water segments which have
water uses in the revised water quality standards that have
been upgraded.
4. The identification of the specific water segments which
have water uses in the revised water quality standards which
are more restrictive than the existing designated beneficial
water uses.
5. Identification of specific water segments with revised
standards which have less stringent water quality criteria than
those criteria contained in the Administrator's Quality Criteria
for Hater document for the appropriate use or water conditions.
6. A summary of the intergovernmental coordination and public
participation which transpired in the development and adoption
of the revised water quality standards. The summary should
include a discussion of the important comments received. When
requested by the Regional Administrator, the State should also
submit its rationale for adopting the revised water quality
standards.
The rationale often may be an important factor in determining
whether to approve or disapprove a revision. The Regional
Administrator can request the rationale for the revisions
actually adopted as well as for the rejection of other alternatives
considered.
E. EPA Review, Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation
The Regional Administrator must review the revised water quality
standards and approve -or disapprove the revision. A standard is
revised only where there has been a substantive change in that
5-26
-------
standard. Where the changes are not substantive (e.g. changing
the numbering system of a regulation or a document title but not
the content of the standards), 1t is not necessary to approve or
disapprove the change. Any change, however, should be submitted
to the EPA for a determination as to its substantive nature.
Depending on the nature of a non-substantive change, 40 CFR
Part 120 may have to be corrected to reflect the change.
1. Approval
Revisions to State water quality standards must be approved
by the Regional Administrator if they meet the requirements of
the Act and 40 CFR Parts 130 and 120. When only a portion of
the revisions submitted meet the requirements of the Act, the
Regional Administrator can only approve that portion. The
Regional Administrator should promptly notify the Governor by
letter of the approval and forward a copy of the letter to the
appropriate State agency with any additional information which
may be helpful in understanding the scope of the approval action
and in conducting future review/revision activities.
Where it is evident that the subsequent occurrence of
particular events could or will result in a failure of the
approved standards to continue to meet the requirements of the
Act, those events should be identified in the approval letter
to facilitate review/revision activities.
The Regional Offices are responsible for preparing the
Federal Register notice of approval amending 40 CFR Part 120
and the accompanying action memorandum. The notice should
contain a description of the State water quality standards as
they are affected by the approved revisions. The notice must
reference the documents containing the approved State water
quality standards, give the dates of adoption and approval, and
include the text of any previous promulgation actions.
The Regional Offices must forward the notice and memorandum
to the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Planning and
Standards (WH-551) for format review. The notice will then be
transmitted to the Federal Register by the Assistant Adminis-
trator for Water and Hazardous Materials. With the submittal,
the Regional Offices must also forward a copy of each of the
following:
. The letter from the appropriate State authority certifying
that the standards were duly adopted and are included within
State law;
5-27
-------
. The letter transmitting the revisions from the State to
EPA for approval;
. EPA approval letter; and
. Copy of the approved revisions.
2. Disapproval
If the Regional Administrator determines that the revisions
submitted or the existing water quality standards themselves are
not consistent with or do not meet the requirements of the Act,
the Regional Administrator must disapprove such standards by
notifying the Governor of the State by letter of that fact.
The letter must state the reason that the revision submitted
or the existing water quality standards are not consistent with
the Act and the specific revisions to State water quality stan-
dards which must be adopted to obtain full approval of the
revised standards. The letter must also notify the Governor
that the Administrator will initiate promulgation proceedings
if the State fails to adopt and submit the necessary revisions
within 90-days after the date of notification.
A revision whose subject matter is not an acceptable constit-
uent element of State water quality standards (e.g. Grandfather
clause or effluent guideline) and which is not consistent with
the applicable requirements of the Act must be disapproved.
The Regional Administrator must notify the State as required
above stating that such revisions must be deleted from water
quality standards in order to meet the requirements of the Act.
If the deletion is not made, the Administrator must proceed to
promulgate as necessary to supersede the inconsistent revision
(303(c)(4) of the Act).
3. Promulgation
Promulgation proceedings are initiated by the preparation
and publication of proposed regulations setting forth revised
State water quality standards. As soon as possible after the
expiration of the 90 days, proposed revisions should be published
in the Federal Register:. A public hearing(s) must be held on
the proposed standards. Within 90 days of their proposal,
standards must be promulgated after giving due consideration
to comments received as a result of intergovernmental coordination
and public participation.
5-28
-------
The Regional Office has a major role in promulgating
standards. They should assist the Administrator by providing
the necessary background information and participating in
public hearings. They also have primary responsibility for
preparing the notices of proposed and final rulemaking and the
action memoranda. The documents should be forwarded to the
Deputy Assistant Administrator.
If a State remedies the deficiencies in State water quality
standards by adopting revised standards which the Regional
Administrator determines meet the requirements of the Act prior
to promulgation, the Administrator will promptly terminate
promulgation proceedings.
4. Withdrawal Notices
A. Proposed Rulemaking
Whenever promulgation proceedings are terminated a notice
of withdrawal of the proposed rulemaking must be published
in the Federal Register. The Regional Offices are respon-
sible for preparing the notice for the Administrator's
signature as well as the action memorandum. Both documents
should be forwarded to the Deputy Assistant Administrator.
B. Disapproval
Water quality standards submitted for approval must
either be approved or disapproved. Disapproval must be
followed by an EPA promulgation. Whenever a disapproval is
not followed by promulgation, the disapproval should be with-
drawn by the Agency. Where the withdrawal pertained to a
disapproval of revisions submitted for approval, the Regional
Administrator must promptly approve the revisions.
C. Promulgation
A promulgated standard should be withdrawn when it is
no longer necessary to assure that State water quality stan-
dards meet the requirements of the Act. Withdrawal may be
desirable for a variety of reasons. For example:
. The State complied fully with a promulgation which
required it to take a particular action; or
5-29
-------
. EPA approved revisions to State water quality standards
where the revisions Included the substantive content of a
previous promulgation.
In such a situation, the Regional Offices should prepare the
notice of withdrawal for the Administrator's signature and the
action memorandum. The documents should be forwarded to the
Deputy Assistant Administrator.
5-30
-------
CHAPTER 6
LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Introduction
A. Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to describe an optional procedure
for developing alternative subplans or strategies for pollution abate-
ment for entire planning areas. This procedure consists of breaking
the planning area into a series of units corresponding to various
land uses, and calculating the pollutant loading (from all sources)
associated with the land use configuration. Alternative abatement
measures can be devised by changing the mix of land uses and land
management practices associated with such uses. This will also
enable tradeoffs between structural solutions (e.g., treatment facil-
ities) and nonstructural solutions (e.g., alternative land uses),
thus increasing the flexibility in the choice of methods to achieve
water quality standards. Analysis of abatement strategies on an
areal basis provides a focal point for developing particular point
and nonpoint source abatement measures for various land areas within
the planning area.
The areal approach to development of abatement measures is also
useful as a means of relating possible control strategies to other
planning activities which can affect land use decisions. Since water
quality is one of a series of economic, social, and environmental
objectives which may be considered when making land use decisions,
the planning agency should be fully aware of planning and implementa-
tion programs designed to achieve these and other objectives of the
area. Of particular importance are planning efforts which may be
ongoing during the development of the plan. This could include land
use, coastal zone management, and air quality maintenance planning.
The planning agency must work closely with agencies responsible for
other planning and implementation programs to ensure that plans are
compatible and that the implementation of other plans and programs
does not have an adverse impact on carrying out the plan.
B. Pertinent Authorizations
Section 201 (c) authorizes, to the extent practicable, the "control
or treatment of all point and nonpoint sources of pollution "
This implies a need for considering land use controls and land manage-
ment practices as a means for nonpoint source control.
Section 208(b)(2)(C)(ii) provides that the areawide waste treatment
management plan include "the establishment of a regulatory program to
regulate the location, modification, and construction of any facilities
6-1
-------
within such area whki. ma.y result in any discharge in such area "
This provides authority for the management agency(s) to regulate
location of new pollutant dischargers by determining the location of
municipal treatment facilities, by seeking control of other pollutant
sources, and by seeking appropriate changes in land use plans and
controls from the ddencles possessing land use jurisdiction in the
area. The term "racilru'es" in the above citation includes any
controllable sou^.e uf- pollutants, the regulation of which contributes
to attaining water quality standards.
More explicit authority for the plan to consider land use in the
area is provided in Section 208(b)(2)(F-H) which states that the plan
will set forth procedures and methods including "land use requirements"
to control to the extent feasible certain nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion. The term 'land .jse requirements" in Section 208(b)(2)(F-H)
includes those land .;.,e controls (legally permitted uses) and those
land management rcgula^'ons (regulation of activities conducted on
land) which contribute to the attainment of water quality standards.
C. Relationship witn Existing Land Use Plans
Throughout the process of incorporating land use considerations
into the plan, primary reliance should be placed on utilizing
existing land use plans, projections, and controls, although it will
be necessary in some cases to identify necessary revisions to incorporate
changes responsive to water quality objectives. Since it is unlikely
that the planning agency will have the authority to enact or implement
changes in land use controls, it is essential that the planning agency
work closely with Those government agencies possessing legal author-
ity for land use pl^n^ng and control. This will be necessary to
assure that the vanaciemknt agency(s) has the authority to implement
the plan.
It is also possible that some jurisdictions within the area will
not have land us;- plans, projections, and/or controls. In this case,
the planning agency should work with the appropriate jurisdictions
to gather enough information about the area so that current and future
development patttiiM^, densities, and policies can be identified. If
it is determined that revisions in these patterns, densities, and poli-
cies are nere$5,a-y ••:, achieve water quality standards in a cost-effective
manner, the plannino d'^enoy must work closely with the appropriate
jurisdictions po:^-\i»iq legal authority to enact and implement such
revisions.
The major ouipjt -.
-------
6.2 Develop Area Subplans through Land Use Analysis
A. Inputs
1. Haste Load Projections by Land Area
Abatement strategies for land units within the planning area
should be designed to reduce existing and projected waste loads in
the area to an acceptable level. The population, employment, land
use, and waste load projections developed as part of element (c)
of the State WQM Plan should be used as the basis for developing
the abatement strategies.
2. Display of Haste Load Projections
In order to develop abatement strategies, it may prove useful,
especially to elicit public reaction, to display existing and
projected waste!oads to show their special configuration. This
could be done on maps used to develop land use projections. Rather
than using a single map, it might be appropriate to use a series
of maps so that point sources, nonpoint sources, and various
pollutant parameters can be clearly identified.
3. Detailed Projection of Waste!oads
Where land use and wasteload projections developed for element (c
do not provide sufficient information to enable design of abate-
ment alternatives, the following land use and environmental factors
may be useful in developing a more detailed breakdown of wasteload
information:
a. Topographic and soil series classifications;
b. Bodies of water and related lands that would be beneficially
or adversely affected by a change in water quality;
c. Water supply, treatment, and distribution systems;
d. Existing waste treatment and collection systems, including
interim facilities and major urban storm drainage facilities;
e. Solid waste disposal sites;
f. Areas presently served by septic tanks and areas suitable
for septic tanks at specified densities;
6-3
-------
d. Efiviyonnientally sensitive areas:
- Aquifers and aquifer recharge areas;
- Marshland and wetlands;
- Drainageways and stream buffers;
- Flood plains;
- Forests and woodlands;
- Erodable and/or poorly drained soils;
- Steep slopes;
- Shorelands.
However, before collecting additional land use and environmental
information, it is important to understand how the information can
be used to relate land use and environmental factors to water quality.
(A discussion of wasteload estimation and prediction techniques is
found in Chapters 7 and 8.)
B. Develop Alternative Abatement Strategies
1. Analyze Alternative Land Use Controls and Practices
Land use controls and practices should be analyzed to determine
those which would be most cost efficient in reducing pollutant
loadings, based on the specific water quality problems in the area.
For example, if sediment is a primary problem, special considera-
tion should be given to controls such as grading regulations,
construction ordinances, and sediment and soil erosion control
ordinances.
Following is a list of major land use controls and practices
that should be considered as possible measures for implementing
pollution control in a planning area. Other ordinances, regula-
tions, and policies which may have a direct or indirect impact on
water quality should also be assessed:
- Zoning;
- Flood plain zoning and regulations;
- Environmental performance zoning;
- Subdivision regulations;
- Planned unit development regulations;
- Buffer zones;
- Conservation and scenic easements;
- Density bonuses;
- Housing codes;
- Building codes;
- Construction permits;
- Development permits;
- Transferable development rights;
6-4
-------
- Hillside development regulations;
- Drainage regulations;
- Grading regulations;
- Soil erosion and sediment control ordinances;
- Solid waste control ordinances;
- Septic tank ordinances;
- Taxation policies;
- Public works policies;
- Public investment policies;
- Land conservation policies;
- Discharge permits.
Land use controls and practices should be reviewed and analyzed
as early as possible in the planning process to ensure their feasi-
bility in plan implementation especially with respect to nonpoint
source control. When evaluating land use controls and practices
for the area, the planning agency should be cognizant of the general
authority and requirements for land use provided under state and local
environmental, conservation, and land use planning programs. Addition-
ally, the agency should survey existing State enabling laws relating
to land use and identify necessary or desirable statutory changes.
This will help ensure that the plan can be implemented with proper
legal authority. Institutional structures for implementing the
controls are discussed in Chapter 9.
Since land use controls and practices are used to achieve a
variety of objectives, the following factors should be considered
when conducting the analysis:
a. Implementation capability. Careful consideration should
be given to the feasibility of land use controls and their
relationship to existing and proposed institutional and
financial arrangements.
b. Consistency with other programs. To the extent that it is
practical, the land_use controls should be consistent with
other programs, policies, and plans such as those related to
transportation, water supply, capital improvements, air quality,
etc.
c. Public acceptance. Since controls that are unacceptable
to the public are unlikely to be implemented, it is essential
that serious consideration be given to the public's viewpoint.
Appropriate public participation measures are discussed in
Chapter 4.
6-5
-------
2. Develop Alternative Subplans
Alternative subplans for all sources should be developed, based
on the analysis of land use controls and practices and specific
point and nonpoint source controls for each land unit considered
in the analysis. Information on point and nonpoint source abate-
ment techniques is found in Chapters 7 and 8.
3. Display Wasteloads for Subplan
The waste loadings for each subplan should be displayed to
show their alternative spacial configuration. (This step completes
the development of alternative area subplans (Chapter 3.6.E).)
A list of the land use controls and practices needed to implement
a given subplan should accompany the display. This list as well
as the display can be used in the environmental assessment and
plan selection process.
C. Refine Subplans
After the various subplans have been developed, further refinements
should be considered in screening alternative subplans and combining
subplans into alternative areawide plans. The following questions
may prove useful in suggesting some final refinements:
1. Is this the optimum development pattern for water quality?
2. Could the number and magnitude of discharges be reduced if
the development pattern was changed?
3. Will the location of discharges have an adverse impact on water
quality?
4. Will the timing of discharges have an adverse impact on water
quality?
5. Would the implementation of additional land use controls reduce
overall investments?
6-6
-------
CHAPTER 7
NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSHJF fV-' IONS
7.1 Introduction
Chapter 3 presents a framework for the systematic evaluation of all
sources of pollution and selection of alternative plat'-, for the area. The
control plans must identify nonpoint sources, evaluate thr-iy impact on
water quality, and delineate measures for their cont.r* I.
Nonpoint sources, while not defined in the Act, are. by inference,
the accumulated pollutants in the stream, diffuse runofft seepage, and
percolation contributing to the degradation of the qinHty of surface and
ground waters*. They include the natural sources (sepps, springs, etc.)
and millions of small point sources that presently are not covered by
effluent permits under the National Pollution Dischprnp nimirmtion System.
Provisions for control of nonpoint sources from .iqr icultural, silvi-
cultural, mining, construction and urban/suburban area must be included in
the development of a State WQM Plan. Land and subsurface Disposal of
residual wastes, salt water intrusion, and hydrographir modification con-
tributing to water quality degradation must also bp i ^^iciered.
7.2 Statutory Requirements and EPA Policy
A. Statute
Section 208(b)(2)(c)(i) states that a 208 plan shall include estab-
lishment of a regulatory program to "implement the waste treatment
management requirements of Sec. 201(c)," which calls ft.-!' control of all
point and nonpoint sources of pollution.
Section 208(b)(2)(F-I) states that a plan prepared under the
areawide waste treatment management planning process shall include:
"A process to (i) identify, if appropriate,, .(nonpoint
sources of pollution)..and (ii) set forth procedures and
methods (including land use requirements) to ..'oMTol to
the extent feasible such sources."
*This definition of nonpoint sources is for purposes of explaining how
the States could develop Best Management Practices for all runoff sources
of pollution not covered by the NPDES program. This definition is not
intended to reflect EPA's possible response to the court order required
by Judge Flannery's decision on NRDC v. Train, Civil Art ion No, 1629,
Federal District Court for the District of Columbia.
7-1
-------
Finally, Sections 208(b)(2)(J) and (K) provide that a plan shall
include:
"A process to control the disposition of all residual waste
generated in such area which could affect water quality,"
and
"A process to control disposal of pollutants on land or in
subsurface excavations within such area to protect ground
and surface water quality;"
B. EPA Policy on Implementing the Statutory Requirements
The requirement for a regulatory program over all point and
nonpoint sources places a clear responsibility on areas developing
State WQM Plans to establish regulation of nonpoint sources. It
is EPA policy that the type of regulation appropriate for each
nonpoint source category should be established by the State.
Designated 208 planning agencies may also define nonpoint source
regulatory measures for approval by the State.
For each nonpoint source problem category, "Best Management
Practices" (BMP) should be defined and implemented through
appropriate regulation. The term "Best Management Practice" refers
to a practice, or combination of practices, that is determined by a State
(or designated areawide planning agency) after problem assessment, exam-
ination of alternative practices, and appropriate public participation
to be the most effective, practicable (including technological, economic,
and institutional considerations) means of preventing or reducing the
amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a level compatible
with water quality goals.
C. General Criteria for Choosing BMP
The definition of BMP states several criteria or tests which should
be applied by the State in choosing Best Management Practices (BMP):
- a BMP should manage "pollution generated by
nonpoint sources"
- a BMP should achieve water quality "compatible
with water quality goals"
- a BMP should be "most effective in preventing
or reducing the amount of pollution generated"
- a BMP should be "practicable"
7-?
-------
1. A BMP should manage "pollution generated by nonpoint sources"
Water pollution sources can be functionally categorized in
accordance with man's activities. This type of categorization has been
used in Sections 208 and 304(e), P.L. 92-500, in connection with
nonpoint sources. It is considered to be applicable to the selection
of BMP to prevent or reduce pollution from these sources. As a mini-
mum, the State should consider the following activity categories in
its establishment of BMP for nonpoint sources:
1. Agricultural Activities
2. Silviculture! Activities
3. Mining Activities
4. Construction Activities
5. Urban Runoff
6. Hydro!ogic Modifications
7. Sources Affecting Ground Water
8. Residual Wastes Disposal
The interrelation of the activities outlined above should be
considered in the selection of BMP. It may be advantageous to
further categorize the nonpoint sources based on similar control
aspects. Utilization of sub-categorization could reduce the
amount of duplication in the selection of BMP. Examples of such
subcategorizations are: (1) by similar physical conditions,
e.g., soils, slope, precipitation patterns; (2) by similar
activities, e.g., soil disturbance -- construction, strip mining,
land development; (3) by site-specific characteristics, e.g., all
activities in a single area of like conditions; and (4) by
pollutant to be controlled, e.g., sediments, acidity/alkalinity,
oxygen demanding materials. Further guidance on establishing
categories is found in Chapter 7.4.
2. A BMP should achieve water quality "compatible with water
quality goals"
Through analysis of existing water quality data and of newly
acquired data where necessary, target levels of abatement should
be chosen for each planning area in the State. The BMP should be
selected in terms of meeting these targets. The pollutants that
must be controlled should be determined. While BMP will normally
prevent or reduce several pollutants, the final selection of BMP
should be related to those pollutants that must be controlled to
achieve water quality goals.
7-3
-------
3. A BMP should be "most effective in preventing or reducing ^1
the amount of pollution generated"
Through water quality analysis, the State should select abate-
ment levels against which the effectiveness of the BMP can be
related. These levels (Ibs/tons per day/week/month/year, Ibs/tons
per acre/square mile/basin, etc.) should be related to the reduction
of pollutants and achievement of water quality goals. The effec-
tiveness of the BMP in reducing pollutants should be fully evaluated «
in terms of the selected abatement levels.
The reduction or elimination of pollutants in the runoff,
seepage, and percolation from nonpoint sources can materially
contribute to the protection of the quality of the Nation's waters. *
In general, there are two options for accomplishing the needed
reductions and/or eliminations, namely; (1) collection and treat-
ment of the pollutants and, (2) reduction and/or prevention of the
formation, runoff, seepage, and percolation of the pollutants.
Collection and treatment of the runoff, seepage and percolation
of pollutants from nonpoint sources may be necessary in some cases.
However, the collection and treatment of pollutants from nonpoint
sources is generally complex and expensive. Because of this,
collection and treatment is considered to be a final measure to
be utilized where other preventive measures will not reach the
necessary water quality protection goals.
The BMP must be technically capable of preventing or reducing
the runoff, seepage, or percolation of pollutants. First consid-
eration should be given to those preventive techniques that have
been shown to be effective during their oast use. New and innovative
techniques should be fully analyzed as to their technical capability
of preventing or reducing pollutants prior to their consideration for
incorporation into the BMP.
While one practice (measure) may be adequate in some cases, BMPs
will generally consist of a combination of practices. The various
alternatives should be fully evaluated. In choosing among the alter-
natives, the BMP that most effectively achieves the desired level of
water pollution control should be chosen. If more than one alterna-
tive will achieve the level of effectiveness necessary to reach
water quality goals, the least costly alternative should be chosen.
7-4
-------
4. A BMP should be "practicable"
Implementation of the BMP should be feasible from not only
the technical standpoint but also from the financial, legal, and
institutional standpoint. The practicality of securing early
implementation should be evaluated in the selection of the BMP.
The primary goal of BMPs is the protection of water quality
However, expensive preventive techniques that will result in
little water quality benefits should be avoided. The BMP must
be capable of being implemented within the financial capability of
the area, and of the owners or operators of the various sources.
Side benefits as well as the installation and operational costs
should be included in the evaluation. The final selection of the
BMP should take into consideration both the costs of the preventive
techniques and the economic benefits (water quality or otherwise)
to society that will result from their use.
A number of the preventive techniques that may be incorporated
in the BMP are already in wideapread use within various source
categories. These techniques should receive first consideration
in the selection of the BMP. Techniques that will require opera-
tional changes in the source management should be avoided unless
they are necessary for water quality protection. Insofar as is
possible, the initial implementation of the BMP should be accomplished
with the existing legal and institutional framework of the State.
However, if additional legal authority is needed, steps should be
taken at an early date to secure the needed authority.
Full consideration should be given to the total effect
on the environment in the selection of the BMP for water pollution
control. A BMP applied to prevent or reduce water pollution
should not result in adverse effects on the other portions of the
environment such as the creation of air pollution or solid waste
disposal problems. Adverse effects on other portions of the environ-
ment are not only undesirable but also will delay the implementation
of a BMP to control water pollution.
7-5
-------
7.3 Planning Methods for Selection of Best Management Practices
Best Management Practices should be related to water quality protection
needs. In order to choose management practices, it is important to establish
(1) how much of a water quality problem exists, (2) to what extent the problem
is attributable to particular categories of nonpoint source generating
activities, (3) how much reduction of pollution from these activities might be
needed, (4) what it might cost to achieve such reduction, and (5) through
what legal, financial, and institutional mechanisms the practices might be
implemented. In order to answer these questions, it is helpful to investi-
gate them in a systematic manner. The following guidance is designed to help
answer these questions, based on the planning process framework established
in Chapter 3.
7.4 Technical Planning
A. Introduction
The purpose of this phase of nonpoint source planning is to answer
the question of how much reduction of pollution is needed for particular
nonpoint source activities in order to protect water quality, and
establish the most cost-effective measure for accomplishing this. There
are many conceivable approaches for relating nonpoint source control
needs to water quality. The level of sophistication of planning should
be chosen in the light of data availability and the need for analyses in
order to make a reasonable argument that particular BMPs are needed and
will accomplish their purpose. It should be recognized that relating
in-stream water quality to levels of pollution generation from cate-
gories of nonpoint source activity is a difficult analysis. NeverthelesSj
this analysis should be carried out in order to provide the best infor-
mation possible for establishing the needed level of abatement of various
nonpoint sources. Once abatement levels are established for particular
nonpoint source activities, it is possible to rely on existing infor-
mation on costs and abatement effectiveness of alternative management
practices.
7-6
-------
B. Inputs
1. Water Quality Analysis
The wate'r quality analysis described in Chapter 3 should provide
the following inputs to nonpoint source planning:
- assessment of nonpoint sources:
The assessment should indicate whether in-stream problems
exist related to runoff and what categories of runoff
pollution are suspected of causing problems.
- segment classification:
Planning for nonpoint sources is only required in relation
to water quality needs. Thus nonpoint source planning should
be undertaken in water quality limited segments, including
segments classified as water quality limited as part of.an
anti-degradation policy.
- existing/projected waste!oads:
Information on existing/projected loads from nonpoint
sources* should be used in the process of classifying
The nonpoint sources are the sources contributing to water quality
degradation where that degradation cannot be accounted for by the
known point sources. This applies from the largest basin to the
smallest subbasin. The nonpoint source load can be expressed as
follows:
N = (Q+S+D) - (P+I)
Where:
N = Quantity (mass) of nonpoint source pollutants in terms
of a given parameter, under a given design flow condition
Q = Quantity of pollutants in the water leaving the test area
S = Quantity of settlement and precipitation of pollutants
D = Quantity of decay of nonconservative pollutants
P = Quantity of pollutants discharged by point sources
(assumed to be constant under a given design flow condition)
I = Quantity of pollutants in the water entering the test area
7-7
-------
segments. However, since information on existing nonpoint
source loads .is likely to be scanty, this information should
be further developed in order to choose nonpoint source
management practices.
- maximum allowable loads:
In water quality limited segments, a gross allotment for
each parameter of pollution should be made (under design
flow conditions) for nonpoint sources. This allotment
provides the basis for establishing pollution reduction
levels for various nonpoint source categories.
2. Priorities
The level of detail of plan elements should be established early
in the planning process. For plan elements which cannot be im-
plemented in the next five years, an assessment can be undertaken
(see Ch. 3.3.C). In the case of nonpoint sources a number of factors
should be considered in determining whether controls can be imple-
mented in the near future.
First, the water quality problem that the controls would seek
to alleviate should be physically reversible. Problems of benthic
deposits (classified as nonpoint sources) may or may not be easily
reversible. Natural levels of siltation and stream bank erosion
may not be controllable.
Second, to be controlled in the near future, the receiving
water should have a potentially fast recovery rate. Examples
might be impoundments or lakes exhibiting eutrophication due
to nutrients from nonpoint sources or estuaries where shellfish
production is limited by toxics or siltation from nonpoint sources.
Third, there should be public support for solving the particu-
lar problem. The prospects for public support are probably greatest
where a particular problem impairs beneficial uses such as water
supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife habitat. Public support
also entails financial support for capital-intensive control measures,
There should be a reasonable prospect of obtaining financial support
for the measures; however, development of management practices should
not be precluded by lack of specific sources of funding for such
measures.
I
7-8
-------
3. Designation of Planning Agencies
It is possible that many agencies will be involved in nonpoint
source planning and implementation. These agencies should be
identified in the State/EPA Agreement (S130.ll). As explained in
Chapter 2, it is advisable for one agency to develop the water
quality analysis and constraints for particular areas of a State.
However the responsibility for developing alternative abatement
measures may be divided among many agencies. In order to make
decisions concerning the divisions of planning and implementation
responsibilities, it may be helpful to initiate management analysis
(see Chapter 7.5) in order to identify agencies and levels of
government having particular expertise in nonpoint source management.
» C. Approach for Relating Mater Quality Constraints to Abatement Measures
1. Area Approach
As.explained in Chapter 3, where there are complex interactions
between activities that generate nonpoint sources and point sources,
it may be appropriate to analyze the problems of particular land
areas within a planning area, develop a mass balance for each of the
pollutants, and attempt to choose the optimal level of abatement
for all these sources. For example, this approach may be advisable
where a number of sources contribute to a given problem - e.g., storm
water and municipal treatment effluents contributing to high fecal
coliform counts. The control needs for storm water should be chosen
in conjunction with those for municipal plants. This might vary from
one urban area to another. The problem may be very complex and the
solutions potentially very costly. Careful analysis of the tradeoffs
is warranted in establishing BMPs in such cases.
2. Category Approach
It is possible that particular pollution problems such as
sediment are attributable to certain activities having well defined
geographic boundaries. If the total problem can be quantified, it
should be possible to divide the total into manageable parts and
devise abatement measures for 'each part. For example, if the
sediment problem can be sufficiently well identified so that an
overall annual loading of sediment can be established for a basin,
this level can be divided into a series of targets for particular
activities through a variety of allocation techniques. This allows
7-9
-------
planning efforts to focus on particular problems one at a time.
Another example of the category approach would be in the case of
new or potential nonpoint source problems. Since they are diffi-
cult to quantify and predict, it is not feasible to establish
tradeoffs between different new sources. Instead each activity
could be planned for independently, with the goal of determining
highest feasible abatement levels for each activity.
a. Establish Planning Categories
Under either the area approach or the category approach,
it is necessary to divide the nonpoint source problem into
parts in order to devise management practices appropriate
to each aspect of the problem. In general the following broad
categories of nonpoint sources should be used in establishing
BMPs:
. agricultural activities
. siIvicultural activities
. mining activities
. construction activities
. urban runoff
. hydro!ogic modifications
. sources affecting groundwater
. residual waste disposal
1) Existing and new sources
For each category of nonpoint sources in the area, an
operational definition of new and existing sources should
be established. A new source would be one that would cause a
major change in drainage. A change from agricultural to
residential use with a resulting significant change in
runoff could be considered new. In addition, all new
stormwater systems and hydrographic modification after a
given date might be considered as "new". Normal changes
in the conduct of a given activity such as agriculture should
not be considered as creating a new source. Rather the
distinction should be based on major changes in topography
and drainage that would tend to cause significant increases
in nonpoint source pollution. The purpose of the distinction
between new and existing sources is twofold. First, greater
depth of planning detail may be appropriate in determining
management practices for existing sources, which vary great-
ly in their magnitude and controllability. Secondly, since it
is not possible to anticipate the magnitude of future nonpoint
source problems, the presumption should be that once existing
sources adopt controls needed to protect water quality, new
sources should be required to adopt the best practices; available
for preventing future increases in pollution. The bes;t
7-10
-------
practices for new sources will in many cases prevent more
pollution per dollar spent than best practices for existing
sources, since there will be flexibility to prevent problems
before they arise, rather than attempting to control them
after the fact.
2) Factors Which Could be the Basis for Further Subcategorization
The following are some of the factors that could be used
to distinguish subcategories of each existing and new nonpoint
source category:
- physical conditions: e.g. soil, slope, rainfall, proximity
to streams, underlying geologic
structure, etc.
- activity: e.g. surface disturbance, subsurface
disturbance, road construction, change
in ground cover, etc.
- site specific e.g. a certain type of mining carried
conditions: out in a particular geographic area
b. Allocate Load Reductions to Each Category
1) Allocation Techniques
As discussed in Chapter 3, there are a number of ways of
expressing the maximum allowable load of pollutants. The
allowable load may be expressed in units of mass/unit time,
where time refers to a particular wet weather flow condition.
The load may also be expressed as mass/unit time where the
time period is longer -- perhaps mass/year. The following are
some possible approaches for allocating this load to the
eight general categories of nonpoint sources discussed
previously:
Qption 1.1 - proportional to area occupied by category:
Under this approach, each major nonpoint source category
would be allocated a permissable load in proportion to the
area it occupied. This approach would result in the same
loading constraint per acre for all categories. This would
be exceedingly difficult for the categories that generate
relatively large quantities of pollutants per unit area to
meet.
7-11
-------
Option 1.2 - proportional to area, with tolerance levels
for each category:
This approach would involve assigning each category a base
allowance of pollutant loading per acre according to the
uncontrollable or background loading expected from each
category. The remaining amount of the maximum load could be
assigned in proportion to area occupied by the category. This
approach has the merit of recognizing realistic limits of
load reduction for each category.
Option 2.1 - equal relative reduction:
Rather than develop a mass per acre constraint for each
category, the information used in determining the maximum
allowable load could provide an indication of the relative
reduction from the existing loading needed to meet the stand-
ards. For example if the existing loading were twice the
loading that should be allowed, the relative reduction for
all sources should be 50% of whatever amount of pollution
each source or category of sources was causing. This approach
would treat all polluters as equally responsible for the
cleanup burden whether their per acre contribution was large
or small.
Option 2.2 - equal relative reduction, with tolerance level
for each category:
By this approach each category would be allowed a given load
per acre based on background or uncontrollable factors. An
equal relative reduction of the excess over the allowed amount
could be applied to all polluters. The relative reduction
would be based on the aggregate reduction needed for the entire
segment or basin.
Option 3.1 - best technology:
This approach involves defining the load constraint for
each category on the basis of the abatement efficiency of
the best techniques for abating pollution for each source
category. These abatement levels can be expressed in units
of mass/acre/time converted to units of mass/time in order
to determine whether the sum of the loads for all categories
would be compatible with the maximum allowable load. Based
on the comparison between the abatement achievable with best
techniques and the allowable load, adjustments in the load
constraint for each category might be necessary.
7-12
-------
To the extent that the allowable load would be assigned
to existing sources, with little or no allowance for pollu-
tion from new sources, it would be necessary to establish load-
ing constraints for new sources on the basis of best technology.
These allocation approaches could be used to divide the
burden of meeting the maximum allowable load among the
principal nonpoint source categories. Within the eight categories
mentioned, there are many possible subcategories representing
different natural physical conditions and production activities.
The allocation for the eight categories could be further
divided into the subcategories.
c. Relationship Between Generation of Pollutants and Transport
to Receiving Waters
The portion of the allowable load assigned to each nonpoint
source category is the loading that would be generated by sources
in that category and transmitted to receiving waters. Since part
of the load that is generated may be assimilated on the land as
it flows over or through land to the receiving water, the load
constraints referred to above apply to the combined generation and
transmission of a pollutant. If the constraint is 10 TN/acre/yr
at the receiving waters and the rate of generation at the source
is reduced to 20 TN/acre/yr, with a transmission rate of 50% of
the amount generated at the site, the receiving water constraints
can be met.
d. Relationship Between Pollutant Parameters
In order to simplify the process of establishing the management
practices to meet the load constraints for each pollutant and
for each category, it may be possible to focus on one or more
pollutant parameters as the principal constraints to be met. For
example, in rural areas, the chemical analysis of sediment may be
fairly uniform over large areas. Thus if appropriate controls
are determined for sediment, these controls will also have a
predictable effectiveness in reducing BOD, pesticides, phosphorus,
and other pollutants that are associated with sediment. In
urban areas the relative proportion of sediment and other parameters
may also exhibit certain uniformities.
7-13
-------
0, Develop Abatement Subplans
1. Area Approach
Procedures for developing abatement measures for each part of
the planning area, for all pollutant sources are discussed in
Chapter 6. Procedures for developing alternative controls for each
category are analogous to those described below in regard to the
category approach.
2. Category Approach
The following steps could be followed in order to determine how
to meet the abatement levels established for each nonpoint source
category. These same steps could also be followed in the area
approach to predict the costs and effectiveness of alternative
abatement measures for all nonpoint source categories within each
part of the planning area.
a. Estimate Existing Waste Loads for each Category/Subcategory
Once the total nonpoint source load of a given pollutant
under given flow conditions has been established, it is necess-
ary to evaluate the breakdown of sources of this pollutant load.
The runoff, seepage, and percolation of pollutants from
nonpoint sources is highly dependent on climatic, seasonal, and
other variable events. High rainfall, antecedent rainfalls,
cropping patterns, street sweeping schedules, time of travel of
runoff, scouring and re-entry of pollutants, etc., must be
considered in the evaluation. While average conditions shed
light on the general situation, an analysis based on high
and/or low runoff periods, covering specific climatic events
and seasonal periods, is more likely to provide an accurate
evaluation of the significance of each nonpoint source.
Data from sources such as building inspection offices, soil
and water conservation districts, and planning agencies, should
be evaluated to locate many of the potential nonpoint sources
of pollutants. Soil survey maps, construction records, urban
sanitation records, and other such documents can provide much
information for evaluation of the pollution potential from
nonpoint sources. A number of agencies (USGS, water treatment
plants, health units, etc.) maintain water quality records,
which should provide information on the origin of nonpoint
sources.
7-14
-------
In general, there are two approaches for tracing the origin
of nonpoint source loadings:
. generalized prediction and,
. monitoring and sampling.
Whichever approach or combination of approaches is used, the
objective should be to determine a reliable estimate of the
load from each category of sources*.
In general, sampling and monitoring may be needed where
problems are so site-specific that prediction techniques cannot
be used with confidence; otherwise prediction techniques may
be preferable, especially those that can be applied using
existing information. However, analysis of nonpoint source
loading should only be carried out to the level of detail need-
ed to choose best management practices.
1) Prediction of Nonpoint Source Loads
Because monitoring and sampling for nonpoint source
detection is costly and requires a long time period to
construct an 'accurate set of data, it is advantageous to
use nonpoint source load prediction techniques. Although
estimating the pollution generated from nonpoint sources
is a difficult task, there are prediction techniques
which can be used. These techniques enable prediction of
nonpoint source load generation and transport based on such
measurable watershed parameters as soil, slope, vegetative
cover, land use, size of drainage area, etc. While these
techniques vary in their reliability, especially with regard
to soluble pollutants and pollutants subject to breakdown in
the environment, they can be useful in choosing best manage-
ment practices.
* The sum of the loads from each category snould enable construction of
a materials balance showing loading for each pollutant to the stream and
origin (location of each category of sources) of the loads. A materials
balance should be constructed in order to carry out the area approach as
described in Chapter 6. The materials balance can be broken down to
whatever degree of detail is appropriate, depending on the accuracy of the
method for estimating nonpoint source loading.
7-15
-------
Guidance on the applicability of these models and
the services available from federal agencies for utilizing
the models is discussed in:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methods for
Identifying and Evaluating the Nature and Extent of
Nonpoint Sources of Pollution, Report No. EPA
430/9-73-014. Washington, D.C. 1973. GPO, $2.45.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Interim Report
on Loading functions for Assessment of Water Pollution
from Nonpoint Sources, November 1975, Project 68-01-2293.
Available from Water Planning Division (WH-554), EPA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Control of Water
Pollution from Cropland, 1975, Report No. EPA-600-2-75-026A.
Available from Water Planning Division (WH-554), EPA.
Additional guidance on prediction models and technqiues
for nonpoint sources is being developed by EPA and will be
available in subsequent guidance.
2) Monitoring and Sampling to Identify Nonpoint Source Loads
Monitoring and sampling should be undertaken in the short
term to identify nonpoint source loading in situations where
more accurate estimates are needed than can be obtained through
use of predictive models. Secondly, monitoring and sampling
should be undertaken over a longer term to refine information
on nonpoint source loading and to serve as a management device
for assessing the progress made in attaining and maintaining
water quality through implementation of best management practices
In the short term, monitoring may be undertaken, if nec-
essary, to estimate a single gross allotment (target abatement
level) for all nonpoint sources contributing to a given water
quality segment. Also, monitoring of carefully selected
nonpoint sources may be undertaken as necessary to calibrate/
verify the analytical technique chosen to estimate the nature
and relative magnitude of the loads associated with each
nonpoint source category. In particular, monitoring may be
needed to verify or supplement loading estimates for such
sources as stormwater outfalls, waste lagoons, septic seepage
7-16
4
-------
areas, land fills, spray irrigation areas, and other signi-
ficant sources that are difficult to estimate through pre-
dictive techniques.
Since it is not expected that nonpoint source load
estimates can be verified in the relatively short timeframe
of initial plan formulation, it may be desirable to initiate
an ongoing monitoring program to be carried out in the plan
implementation phase.
The monitoring and sampling approach needed for nonpoint
source identification and verification should determine a
schedule of prioritized activities that will enable a given
degree of identification of individual nonpoint sources at a
given point. For example, if the total nonpoint source load
to the area is 1/3 of the total pollutant load for a given
pollutant, the monitoring and sampling activities should be
aimed at verifying a given percent of the nonpoint source
load by a given date. Instream water quality data which could
be related'to specific nonpoint source sites should be evalu-
ated in order to determine whether a given increment of waste
detectable in the stream could be attributed to a given nonpoint
source.
The sum of the wasteloads that could be traced back to
contributing sources should be a given percent of the total
nonpoint source load that is chosen for the initial monitoring
and sampling coverage. If the individual nonpoint sources
that can be identified do not sum up to that given percent of
the total nonpoint source load, then additional data should be
collected.
b. Assess Effectiveness and Costs of Alternative Management
Practices for each Category
No single control method or set of control methods will be
appropriate for all types of nonpoint source problems. Even
controls for a particular type of source will vary in effective-
ness according to geographic location. The controls should be
tailored to local conditions if they are to be effective. Thus,
a thorough knowledge of both specific types of nonpoint sources
and local conditions is a prerequisite to the design of appro-
priate and effective controls.
The second step in determining best management practices
for nonpoint sources is the identification of the technically
feasible structural controls and the practicable nonstructural
controls that are available for particular nonpoint source
problems. Technically feasible control alternatives for
7-17
-------
particular types of nonpoint sources are categorized and
discussed in the Best Management Practice papers, attached
to these guidelines as Supplement No. 1. It should be
emphasized that these control alternatives are cited only
as examples, and that other viable alternatives, if available,
should also be investigated and considered.
For each nonpoint source category causing a water quality
problem, technically feasible control options should be pre-
sented. For each option, the cost of the control and the
effectiveness of the control in abating different pollutants
(either at their source, or their yield to receiving waters)
should be presented. Determination of nonstructural control
costs should be based upon the opportunity cost of the
control as discussed in Chapter 10.
1) Representative Data for Cost and Effectiveness
Since the cost and effectiveness of nonpoint source
controls depend on the exact circumstances in which the
control is used, cost and effectiveness vary considerably.
For purposes of evaluation, cost data should represent the
typical or average situations. This will assure that the
cost and effectiveness of the control are neither over-
estimated nor underestimated if the control is being
considered for widespread application. Naturally, if the
control is only applicable in very specific cases, data
should be representative of that specific situation.
2) Estimation of Cost and Effectiveness Information
Because the precise cause-effect relationship between
application of a given control and achievement of a given
reduction of wastes to receiving waters is difficult to
define, calculation of cost-effectiveness may require pre-
liminary estimation.
Once a particular nonpoint source problem has been
identified, the approximate reduction of the source load
that could be obtained through a given control can be
determined. Since the cost of the control can generally
be assessed with some degree of accuracy, the cost-effectiveness
estimation enables an overall ordering of the most feasible
controls for nonpoint sources. To the extent that the esti-
mates are difficult to make, some reasonably effective practice
should be combined with a monitoring program to assess the
effectiveness of the practice.
7-18
-------
c. Propose Best Management Practices for Each Category
After identifying instream pollutant loading from nonpoint
sources and examining technically feasible nonpoint source
controls, the final step in nonpoint source technical planning
is determination of best management practices for existing and
new nonpoint sources. This selection process should be based
on determining the cost effectiveness of alternative controls
for reducing existing and potential loading to a level com-
patible with water quality goals.
The process of selecting controls for existing and new
nonpoint sources is essentially the same in that cost-effectiveness
and implementation feasibility should be the criteria for choosing
controls. However, for most new sources there are often more
options for highly effective management measures and these
higher levels of abatement (chosen in the establishment of
maximum allowable pollutant loads) should be considered in the
selection of best management practices in order to prevent or
minimize future pollutant increases.
1) Relationship with Management Program
Selection of best management practices should be closely
coordinated with the development of a management program
to implement controls for point and nonpoint sources. A
management program should establish the following legal,
financial, and technical support aspects of best management
practices (see Ch. 7.5 for further discussion):
Regulatory mechanisms, including legal authority
to implement and enforce best management practices;
. Fiscal programs to provide incentives to adopt
best management practices;
. Technical assistance and interagency coordination
to help affected parties comply with regulatory
programs.
2) Preliminary Screening of Nonpoint Source Control
Options
In order to compare nonpoint source control options, it
is necessary to reduce the number of possible options for
each category to those that are technically feasible, with
adequate documentation of cost and effectiveness. A reason-
able number of control options for each significant non-
point source category should be presented.
7-19
-------
3) Development of Alternative Subplans
After control options for each category have been
developed, they should be combined to form alternative
subplans. Each subplan should indicate the cost and
effectiveness of possible BMPs in meeting the target
nonpoint source load reduction levels.
The following information for each category of nonpoint
sources should be presented as an input to the combined
evaluation of technical and management plans:
. Waste!oad characteristics of each alternative;
. Total cost of each alternative expressed as its
present value of capital and operating costs for
the overall alternative and subsystem components;
. Reliability of each alternative and subsystem
included in each alternative;
. Significant environmental effects of each alter-
native consistent with NEPA procedures, including
a specific statement of future development impact;
. Contribution of each alternative to other water-
related objectives of the planning area.
7.5 Management Planning
A. Introduction
The purpose of management planning is to determine the legal,
financial, and institutional means needed to implement best management
practices. After proposed management practices can be determined from
a technical standpoint, it is necessary to examine their implementation
feasibility and, if necessary, make adjustment to the originally pro-
posed practices in order to ensure that the selected practices are
feasible from a legal, financial, and institutional standpoint. The
following management planning procedures are based on the framework
for management planning described in Chapter 3.
B. Define Management Agency(s) and Institutional Arrangements
The first step in management planning should be to define the scope
of legal authority, financial capacity, and institutional arrangements
to manage nonpoint sources.
7-20
-------
1. Legal Authority
Legal authority to treat wastes from nonpoint sources or to
regulate owners and operators of nonpoint sources according to
the management practices proposed in the technical phase of
nonpoint source planning should be defined.
2. Financial Capacity
The level of public and private expenditure to carry out the
management practices and possible financial programs to obtain
the funds should be identified.
3. Management Agency(s) and Institutional Arrangements
A general description of the type of agency and interagency
arrangements to carry out proposed practices should be described.
C. Management Analysis
1. Legal Analysis
An analysis should be made of the existing legal basis for
requiring management of nonpoint sources within the planning area.
The analysis should attempt to determine the adequacy of the exist-
ing law, distinguishing the extent to which authority to regulate
nonpoint sources may exist, as opposed to the administrative
effectiveness in carrying out the law. Wherever possible the
proposed nonpoint source management practices should rely on
existing general authority and seek to establish necessary
implementing regulations and administrative and enforcement
capability. The need for new legislation should also be iden-
tified early in the planning process.
2, Financial Analysis
For each proposed management practice, a tentative financial
program should be developed. This program should identify capital,
operating, and administrative costs and sources of financing for
the various cost elements. The financial analysis should explore
the possibility of relying on existing programs to finance parts
or all of the costs for particular cost elements.
3• Institutional Analysis
There are many existing agencies and programs concerned with'
nonpoint source management. An analysis should be made of the
extent to which these programs could incorporate the function of
land management controls for water quality protection. It is
7-21
-------
possible that many existing programs could undertake part or all
of the responsibilities for implementing best management practices.
Where uncertain authority exists for these agencies and programs to
undertake management projects or regulate nonpoint source owners
and operators, it may be possible to strengthen the authority of
these agencies or have the agencies administer a program in cooper-
ation with other agencies and levels of government that have the
requisite legal authority. In other instances the legal authority
may exist to implement management practices, but insufficient funds
may prevent an effective program. In such cases some of the funding
sources suggested in Chapter 10 should be explored and expanded budgets
proposed for the agencies that otherwise could be effective in
implementing management practices. A third deficiency of existing
agencies and programs may be lack of a coherent administrative
structure to relate water quality and other resource management
programs. For example, many public works and land management pro-
grams have an impact on water quality; however, water quality
protection may not be an explicit goal in these programs. By slight
modification in the mission of these existing land and resource
management programs, it may be possible to develop effective water
quality management institutions. However, it may still be necessary
to develop coordination mechanisms between the many institutions
having the potential to carry out water quality management.
The following is a partial list of existing agencies and levels
of government that may have the potential to carry out nonpoint
source management:
Agriculture
Silviculture
Mining
Construction
Federal
Soil Conservation
Service
Forest Service
Federal Bureau of
Mines
Dept. of Housing
& Urban Dev.
Dept. of Trans.
State
Dept. of Agriculture
Dept. of Natural
Resources
Dept. of Mining
Dept. of Trans.
Regional
County/Local
Soil Conservation
Districts
County/Municipal
Engineer
Municipal Bldg.
Inspector
7-22
-------
Urban Runoff
Hydrologic Modi-
fication
Source Affecting
Ground Water
Residual Waste
Disposal
Public Land/Re-
source Mgmt.
Activities
Affecting
Above Non-
point Sources
Federal
Dept. of Housing &
Urban Dev.
(Flood Insurance
Program)
Dept. of Army,
Corps, of Engineers
Regional
State County/Local
County Municipal
Engineer
Sanitary Sewage
Authority
State Dept. of Health Local Dept. of Health
Regional County and
Municipal Departments
of Sanitation
Dept. of Interior
Bureau of Land Mgmt.
Bureau of Reclama-
tion
Forest Service
National Park Serv.
Federal Power Comm.
Dept. of Army, Corps
of Engineers
State Land Resource
Managing Agencies
County, Local Parks
Departments
The analysis of existing programs having the potential to implement
nonpoint source management should lead to specific proposals for organ-
izations to implement the management practices developed in the technical
phase of planning. Depending on the results of this analysis, the
function of technical development of proposed best management practices
may be delegated to an agency having particular expertise in nonpoint
source management. Whatever agency has the responsibility for technical
development of BMPs, there should be close coordination between the
technical phase of BMP development and the selection of management
agencies to supervise BMP implementation.
D. Development of Alternative Management Plans
1• Propose Alternative Management Options
For each category of sources and each major technical alternative
for BMP management, options to implement the BMP should be proposed.
These options should identify the source of legal authority for the
management practice (including proposed schedules for enabling legis-
lation, if necessary), a proposed financial program identifying
existing or new sources of funding, and the agency(s) proposed to
7-23
-------
provide technical assistance, supervise, monitor, and enforce BMP
implementation. In addition where many agencies are proposed for
different source categories, the management structure to coordinate
these agencies and to integrate nonpoint source management into
the overall State WQM Plan should be identified.
2. Assessment of Management Alternatives for Consistency with
Technical Proposals
Since technical BMP proposals may vary in their complexity, it
is important to determine whether the agency proposed to supervise
their implementation has the necessary manpower, expertise, and
financial resources to administer the particular technical proposal.
3. Screen in Terms of Implementation Feasibility
Before final selection of BMPs, the proposed management approach
for each category of sources should be evaluated according to the
criteria of implementation feasibility discussed in Chapter 3. The
following evaluation should be made for the BMPs proposed for each
category of sources:
legal authority: Is there adequate authority, or an adequate
legislative proposal to acquire the authority called for
in Section 208(c)(2) of the Act and for the regulatory program
specified in Section 208(b)(2)(C) of the Act?
. financial capacity: For public sector projects, are there
adequate funds or a specific legislative proposal to acquire
such funds? For BMP costs to be borne by private landowners,
are the costs reasonable and affordable; is adequate provision
made to phase implementation of the BMP according to the
capacity of landowners to bear the costs? For overall program
management, are there sufficient resources devoted to super-
vision of the entire nonpoint source management effort, in
addition to the separate administrative costs of each program
element?
. institutional feasibility: Is the management approach practical
in the sense of relying on available programs where possible?
Is the management approach administratively coherent, with
adequate supervision of each program element and of the program
as a whole? Is there broad public understanding and acceptance
for the management approach?
4. BMP Selection
The selection of BMPs should be undertaken as part of the overall
plan evaluation and selection process described in Chs. 13 and 14.
7-24
-------
CHAPTER 8
POINT SOURCE CONSIDERATIONS
8.1 Introduction
Chapter 3 presents a framework for systematic evaluation and selection
of pollution control strategies for all sources of pollutants. This chapter
describes technical planning considerations for developing alternatives
abatement measures for point sources of pollution. The point sources con-
sidered in this chapter are discharges from municipal treatment plants,
combined sewer overflows, and industrial waste effluents. Disposal of
wastewater sludge, and wastewater reuse are also discussed. Balanced
consideration of measures other than the traditional capital intensive
approaches of point source control is stressed in this chapter.
Alternatives considered should encompass all applicable structural and
management measures for preventing, abating, reducing, storing, treating,
separating, recycling, reclaimina and disposing of municipal and industrial
wastewater and combined sewer discharges.
8.2 Planning Approach for Point Sources
A. Inputs
1. Hater Quality Analysis
-- problem assessment:
The problem assessment should indicate where planning is
needed for existing point source problems. A determination
of planning needed to prevent future problems can be made
by evaluating projections of future population, employment,
land use, wasteloads.
-- segment classification:
The segment classification should indicate the type of
'wasteload constraints that will be required of point source.
Where waste load allocation is required, it is important
to choose a planning approach allowing consideration of
tradeoffs between all sources requiring load allocation.
-- maximum allowable loads:
In Water Quality Limited segments, the maximum allowable
load for pollutants provides the planning constraints that
should be met in developing abatement strategies.
8-1
-------
2. Priorities
Before developing abatement strategies for point sources, it
is important to determine the level of detail of the outputs of
these strategies. If the abatement measures are to be imple-
mented in the next five years, all the outputs for point sources
specified in Table 3.1 should be developed at a level of detail
sufficient for implementing the outputs. (The relationship
between the facility plans outputs provided in the State WQM Plan
and further facility planning is described in Chapter 2). Where
the particular element of the plan cannot be implemented in the
next five years, the level of detail may consist of a more
general assessment having the type of information indicated in
Table 3.2
B. Choice of Methods (and Level of Detail) for Relating Water Quality
Analysis to Development of Abatement Measures
1. Water Quality Limited Segments - Area Approach
The area approach to developing abatement measures is described
in Chapter 3. A detailed procedure to carry out this approach,
relating pollution loads to land use plans and policies is described
in Chapter 6. It is recommended that the area approach be followed
for developing point source subplans in Water Quality limited
segments. The reason for this recommendation is that the area
approach encourages evaluation of alternative levels of abatement
and alternative discharge locations for point sources, allowing
the maximum flexibility in the waste load allocation process.
2. Effluent Limited Segments
The waste load constrained in effluent limited segments would
be established in the effluent guidelines for the particular point
source category.
C. Development of Abatement Plans
The following sections (Chapter 8.3-8.6) describe procedures for
developing alternative abatement plans for municipal, private waste-
water combined sewer, and industrial point sources. These alternatives
should be combined into alternative area subplans for point sources as
described in Section 8.7.
8.3 Municipal Wastewater Facilities
A. Introduction
Planning of municipal facilities within an area should provide for
(1) cost-effective, environmentally sound, and implementable treatment
8-2
-------
works to meet the present needs of the area and (2) a general program
to phase facilities development to meet future needs as projected in
an overall land use plan. Balanced evaluation of nonpoint source
abatement and prevention measures as well as point source measures
should precede final selection of the treatment works. Treatment
works must meet the applicable requirements of Sections 201(g), 301,
and 302 of the Act. As a minimum, facilities plans must provide
for application, by 1983, of the best practicable waste treatment
technology (BPWTT). Where necessary to meet wasteload allocation
constraints consistent with water quality standards, plans must
provide for measures to further reduce pollutants. The determina-
tion of BPWTT, or measures providing for higher treatment levels if
needed, is based upon evaluation of technologies included under each
of the following waste management techniques:
a. treatment (biological or physical-chemical) and
discharge to receiving waters;
b. treatment and reuse;
c. land application or land utilization
Comparision of the above techniques and determination of BPWTT for
a specific case should include considerations for management of nutri-
ents in wastewater and sludges, development of integrated (solid, liq-
uid, and thermal) waste facilities, and enhancement of recreation and
open space opportunities.
This section covers major aspects of the municipal wastewater
facilities planning presented in the EPA document entitled "Guidance
for Facilities Planning".
B. Delineate Service Area
Service areas for municipal waste treatment facilities should
be delineated based on the population, economic, land use, and
waste load projections discussed in Chapter 3. In general, a
treatment service area includes the sewered areas tributary to an
integrated waste treatment system plus those additional portions
of watersheds likely to be connected over the planning period.
The delineations should outline, on at least a preliminary
basis, geographic areas sufficient to permit cost-effectiveness
analyses of alternatives, including waste treatment methods and
ultimate disposal options for sludge and treated effluents. Also,
each of the areas should be of sufficient size to consider cost
savings, management advantages, or environmental gains resulting
from regionalization. Given these concepts, service areas for
waste treatment systems and ultimate sludge disposal or utilization
are not necessarily the same. For example, sludge from two (or more)
8-3
-------
separate treatment service areas could be land-filled or used as a
soil-conditioner at a common site; in this case, the sludge disposal
service area would include the separate treatment service areas.
In smaller SMS.As (less than 100,000), or those with few political
entities or public bodies having jurisdiction over sewage disposal,
the service areas should encompass either the entire SMSA or the core
city plus contiguous urban places. The fact that service areas are
delineated does not necessarily imply that all land within a service
area should, be serviced by municipal sewage collection and treatment
systems. In fact, in iriany less densely populated areas, or Darts of
urbanized areas there are economic and environmental advantages to on
site disposal of waste. The service area delineation merely represents
a potential area in which to investigate possible municipal treatment
systems.
In larger urban areas, single facilities plan coverage of the
entire area may be unattainable or inappropriate for institutional,
geographic, or other reasons. Service areas should still encompass
contiguous waste treatment systems when these conditions occur:: 1)
such systems may require major new or expanded treatment plants, sludge
disposal or effluent disposal facilities; and, 2) system interconnection
or joint facilities would be feasible alternatives.
Recognizing the considerations discussed above, service area
boundaries for non urban areas should encompass the entire com--
munity including those areas subject to future urban development.
Where cost savings or other advantages might result from waste
treatment system interconnect joint effluent or sludge disposal faci-
lities, or collective management for two or more nearby communities,
the service area should encomoass the community group. If a community
is isolated sufficiently to preclude regionalization, the service
area should be confine/i to that community.
The delineated service areas should be outlined on maps to the
same scale as those used in the projected population and land-use
presentation (Chs. 3 and 6).
C• Inventory Existjnq_Conditions and Determine Existing Flows
The existing waste treatment systems must be accurately assessed
to establish a basis for planning any systems modifications. Where
available, the Phase 3 Plans will provide essential information on
municipal point sources, waste loads, wastewater flows, and water
quality within the planning area. Data from permits would be an
additional source of information. At the start of planning, this data
should be reviewed and supplemented as necessary. The assessment of
each existing waste treatment system should include a performance
evaluation of the treatment plant, including operating problems and
personnel, and samn'iirto and maintenance program. Data on current
8-4
-------
performance of many treatment facilities will be available from
State water quality agencies as a result of their programs involving
operations and maintenance visits and consultations. An infiltration/
inflow analysis should also be made on a preliminary basis to deter-
mine whether excessive infiltration or inflow exists and, on a pre-
liminary basis, costs of any corrective measures required. Should
the analysis determine the existence of excessive infiltration/inflow,
a more detailed sewer system evaluation survey should be made to
specifically define problems and determine types and costs of correc-
tive measures. A State WQM planning grant cannot be used for the
detailed sewer evaluation survey; however, grant assistance may be
obtained under a construction grant (40 CFR 35, Subpart E). To
assure satisfactory management of residual wastes, an inventory of
sludge utilization and disposal should also be conducted.
D. Estimate Future Waste Loads and Flows
To provide a basis for planning and preliminary design of
facilities, future variations of waste loads and the flows over the
planning period must be forecast. As described in Chapter 3, forecasts
must bebasedon economic and demographic growth trends for the
planning area and should be based upon evaluation of land use plans,
and any growth contraints imposed by air quality implementation
plans, zoning restrictions or permit conditions. The effects of
selected flow and waste reduction measures, including sewer system
rehabilitation to correct infiltration/inflow, should also be
reflected in the flow forecasts to permit subsequent calculation of
waste treatment system cost reductions.
1. Land Use and Development
Wastewater load and flow projections should conform to the
time phased development shown on the land use projections that
are proposed as being compatible with water quality goals. (See
Chapter 3 and 6). To avoid changes in the growth pattern from
that projected in the land use plan, schedules of hookups should
be developed through a regulatory program. (See Chapter 9).
2. Flow and Waste Load Forecasts
The expected economic and population growth patterns for
the planning area, as projected in the land use plan, should
be translated into estimates of wastewater flows and waste loads,
with a realistic allowance for unpreventable infiltration. The
estimated future changes in flows and waste loads from industries
served by the municipal system should reflect application of EPA
pretreatment requirements for existing and new industries plus any
expected process changes affecting wastewater and treatment
residuals. Wastewater flow forecasts should also include the
8-5
-------
and anticipated discharges from septic tank pumpages into the
systems.
3. Sludge Generation Forecasts
The volumes and composition of sludge which will be
generated from treatment of wastewater should be estimated.
These forecasts should be modified to reflect the different
treatment levels characteristic of the alternative systems
considered.
E. Develop and Evaluate Alternatives
Since the facilities element of State WQM planning does not
necessarily imply larger interconnected waste treatment systems
for an area, the initial planning for facilities systems should
involve a systematic comparison of many subsystem, as well as
system, options. For each municipal wastewater system, subsystem
options should be identified. Compatible options should be
combined into preliminary treatment systems consistent with the
alternative wasteload allocation sets.
By using a rough estimation of cost and impact, the components
of the alternative facility plan should then be screened on the
basis of goal attainment, monetary costs, and environmental,
social, and economic effects. Legal or institutional constraints
and implementation feasibility should also be considered. Unacceptable
alternatives should be rejected; those remaining should be developed
into a limited number of proposals, employing each of the previously
discussed waste management techniques. Adequate justification
should be given for eliminating any of those techniques at any
stage.
The following paragraphs briefly describe major factors that
might be considered and procedures that might be applied in the
development and evaluation of alternative wastewater systems.
However, the following factors should only be considered to the
extent needed to develop the required facilities element of a
State WQM Plan:
1. Flow and Waste Reduction Measures
The Act encourages the use of a variety of methods
where cost-effective for reducing both the volume and amount
of waste within municipal wastewater systems. Some of the
following measures would reduce not only wastewater loads,
but water supply demands as well:
8-6
-------
a. Infiltration/inflow reduction by sewer system
rehabilitation and repair, and elimination of roof and
foundation drains.
b. Household water conservation measures, such as
water saving appliances and fixtures.
c. Water and wastewater rates that impose costs
proportional to water used and wastewater generated;
use of water meters.
d. Educating the public on the value of water resources
and the need to reduce water consumption.
2. Industrial Service
Municipal waste treatment systems should be planned to
serve industrial users of the area whenever practicable and
cost-effective. Special requirements, issues, and procedures
associated with industrial use of a municipal system are
covered in section 8.6 of this chapter.
3. Sewers
a. System Configuration and Capacity
Planning of a waste treatment system includes the
comparison of alternative arrangements of interceptors
and collection pipes, including phased development, to
assure selection of a cost-effective configuration. In
newly developing portions of the planning area, the
capacities of the system, in particular the larger
lateral and interceptor sewers, should generally accommodate
not more than the 20-year wastewater projection based
upon the land use plan. However, choice of interceptor
and collection pipe sizes should reflect cost-effective
analysis of alternatives over the planning period. The
practice of designing interceptors for long-term projected
growth or ultimate development within the service area
should be discouraged. As an alternative, consideration
should be given to interim (short-term) treatment works
for outlying areas or to septic tank units for individual
or clustered developments in low density areas.
b. Sewer Hookup Schedules
Since the capacity of the facilities and design of
the treatment system is based on flow projections which
conform to a time-phased land use plan, it is necessary
8-7
-------
to establish a schedule for hookups in the system. A
hookup schedule is important in managing the system over
time in order to prevent growth from exceeding the designed
capacity of the system.
In the event that a violation of an NPDES permit
occurs due to overloading of treatment works, the Regional
Administrator (or the State if the NPDES program has been
delegated to a State) may, under authority of Section
402(h) of the Act, seek a court order imposing a ban or
restrictions upon sewer connections. A series of planning
and management actions to prevent overloading of facilities
may be included as special conditions to permits issued to
facilities in danger of imminent overloading.
Since the State WQM Plan is to include a regulatory
program to regulate location of pollutant discharges in the
area, and since the management agency(s) must possess
authority to refuse to treat wastes from a municipality or
subdivision which does not comply with the plan, a schedule
of hookups is an appropriate management approach for carrying
out this regulatory program. The enforcement of the schedule
through the regulatory program may require specific authorizing
legislation and will therefore necessitate thorough legal
analysis. (See Chapter 9.)
4. Waste Management Techniques
Alternative waste management techniques must be evaluated
to determine the BPWTT for meeting applicable effluent
limitations, including those related to wasteload allocation.
Information pertinent to this evaluation is contained in an
EPA document entitled "Alternative Waste Management Techniques
for Best Practicable Waste Treatment" (Proposed in March
1974). Selection of a waste management technique is closely
related to effluent disposal choices. Preliminary alternative
systems featuring at least one technique under each of the
three categories (treatment and discharge, wastewater reuse,
and land application or land utilization) should be identified
and screened. Techniques which incorporate wastewater reuse
and land application should be utilized whenever possible. A
more detailed proposal should be prepared for each unless
adequate justification for eliminating a technique during the
screening process is presented.
Published cost, performance, and other information is
available for many alternative treatment technologies.
Preliminary screening of these technologies involves comparing
costs and relative treatment capabilities.
8-8
-------
a. Treatment and Discharge
Treatment and discharge techniques include the
following:
(1) Biological treatment including ponds, activated
sludge, trickling filters, processes for nitrification,
and denitrification;
(2) Physical-chemical treatment including chemical
flocculation, filtration, activated carbon, breakpoint
chlorination, ion exchange, and ammonia stripping.
b. Wastewater Reuse
In comparing waste management techniques and
alternative systems, wastewater reuse applications
should be evaluated as a means of contributing to local
water management goals. Such applications include:
(1) Industrial processes;
(2) Groundwater recharge for water supply enhancement
or preventing salt water intrusion;
(3) Surface water supply enhancement;
(4) Recreation lakes;
(5) Land reclamation.
Wastewater reuse needs should be identified and
defined by volume, location, and quality. These needs
may influence the location of the treatment facilities,
the type of process selected, and the degree of treatment
required.
c. Land Application
The application of wastewater effluents on the
land involves the recycling of most of the organic
matter and nutrients by biological action in the soil
and plant growth, generally providing a high degree of
pollutant removal. Planning of the land application
techniques should reflect criteria and other information
contained in the EPA document on "Alternative Waste
Management Techniques for Best Practicable Wa^te Treatment."
8-9
-------
Land application techniques include:
(1) Spray, ridge and furrow, and flood
irrigation techniques;
(2) Overland flow;
(3) Infiltration-percolation;
(4) Other approaches such as evaporation,
deep well injection, and subsurface leach
fields.
5. Residual (Sludge) Management
Evaluation of alternatives for management of residual
wastes from municipal treatment works should be closely
coordinated with the evaluation of each waste management
technique. Such evaluation includes the evaluation of
alternative combinations of sludge processing and utilization
techniques for satisfactorily and economically disposing of
quantities of residual wastes. Care must be taken to assure
that these methods do not appreciably add to air quality or
water quality problems.
A variety of sludge processing and utilization techniques
are available including (a) thickening, (b) chemical conditioning,
(c) chemical stabilization, (d) aerobic and anaerobic digestion,
(e) dewatering, (f) thermal processing for volume reduction
or drying, (g) composting, and (h) land spreading as a soil
conditioner. Sludge disposal options are limited primarily
to land disposal, land utilization, and incineration, and
.must comply with the EPA policy statement on acceptable
methods, based on current knowledge, for the ultimate disposal
of sludges from publicly-owned wastewater treatment plants.
Disposal techniques such as soil conditioning and land
utilization which realize the nutrient value of sludge as
fertilizer should be given special attention in adopting a
sludge disposal program for the area. Furthermore, consideration
should be given to local air pollution control regulations
and energy rquirements if incineration is an option.
(Guidance on management of residuals in general is contained
in Chapter 7.)
8-10
-------
6. Location of Facilities
Evaluation and choice of sites for treatment plants,
interceptors, transmission lines, outfalls, pumping plants,
and other major works should comply with the land use plan.
Factors to be considered tn selecting location include:
a. Possible odor and aesthetic problems;
b. Flexibility to convert to possible future reuse
and additional pollution abatement needs;
c. Special protection of potable, shellfish, and
recreation waters;
d. Avoidance of floodplain and wetland areas, if
practicable;
e. Induced growth impacts in flood hazard or environmentalIj
sensitive areas.
7. Regionalization
Regionalization options should be evaluated to assure
use of the most cost-effective facilities systems consistent
with the planning area's waste management needs. Various
combinations of treatment plants, interceptors and other
works should be identified; and each should be consistent
with a target wasteload allocation. The economy of scale
associated with a large treatment plant should be balanced
with consideration of environmental and social impact,
especially if the inter-connected system would tend to
induce growth patterns conflicting with the land use plan.
The effect of streamflow depletion due to transport of
wastewater to a downstream plant, and the impact of concentrating
wastes from plant effluents at fewer points should also be
considered. The evaluation of regionalization might lead to
reconsideration of the service areas that were initially
chosen for developing the facilities element of the State
Water Quality Management Plan.
8. Phased Development
a. General
In examining the cost-effectiveness of a waste
treatment system, two alternatives should be considered:
(1) initial provision of sufficient capacity to serve
8-11
-------
the needs of the area as projected over the planning Vl
period; and (2) phased development of systems and
modular construction of individual facilities within
the system to meet future needs. The phased and modular
development option would involve planning for construction
of facilities and facilities components at intervals
throughout the planning period to accommodate projected
increases of waste loads and flows. The following
factors should be included in an assessment of the
options: the service life of the treatment works; the
incremental costs; and flow and waste load forecasts.
b. Reserve and Excess Capacity
•»
The planning of waste treatment facilities will
normally provide some excess capacity to allow for
daily, wet weather, and seasonal flow variations as
well as projected flow increases. The system capacity
excess should be examined from a cost-effective viewpoint,
particularly for treatment plants serving areas experiencing
growth where phased construction may be more cost-
effective than initial construction for long-term
capacity needs. Provision of holding storage at the
plant intake should also be considered to equalize
daily flow variations.
c. Phased Development of System
Phased development of the system is advisable in
rapidly growing areas, in areas where the projected
flows are uncertain, or where full initial development
of facilities would tend to distort growth from that
shown in the area land use plan. The phasing should
provide sufficient excess capacity at the beginning of
each construction phase to accommodate expected flow
increases during the phase. Phasing of sewers may
involve provision of parallel or multiple systems or
extension of single lines.
d. Modular Development of Individual Facilities
Modular development of individual facilities is
advisable in areas where high growth rates are projected,
where the required degree of treatment must be upgraded
later in the planning period, or where existing facilities
are to be used initially but phased out later. Modular
development would avoid long-term operating problems
8-12
-------
associated with underutilization of certain components
of the plant. Where modular development is used, provisions
should be made during the design of the initial facilities
for future additions.
e. Interim Facilities
After the State WQM plan has been approved, no
NPDES permit issued may be in conflict with that plan.
Since interim facilities receive permits, they must be
considered in the planning process. Such facilities
are often used to treat wastes from areas not immediately
serviceable by larger, often regional, treatment facilities.
Careful consideration should be given to the way in
which interim facilities will be used, especially in
high growth areas. Since such facilities have the
potential for inducing development that may be in
conflict with regional service plans, special attention
should be given to the interim facilities' eventual
connection to the larger system. Thus, in planning for
interim facilities, particular consideration should be
given to:
(1) Ensuring that the area to be served by the
interim facility is in conformance with land use
plans and controls;
(2) Ensuring, through the establishment and
enforcement of a schedule of hookups for the life
of the facility, that the interim facility will
not be overloaded;
(3) Ensuring when the facility is no longer
needed, that its service area is transferred to a
permanent facility;
(4) Reusing the abandoned facility for some other
needed function, such as use as a pumping station;
(5) Ensuring proper operation, maintenance, and
inspection. (Trained, certified operators should
be used.)
f. Flexibility and Reliability
Flexibility and reliability should be considered
throughout the planning of municipal facilities. As men-
tioned in previous sections, flexibility factors include
8-13
-------
possible upgrading of water quality objectives, future fl
application of new technologies, future application of
wastewater reuse, modular and phased development of facilities,
and temporary treatment plants.
Reliability considerations are important since a
risk of failure exists in any wastewater system. With
a view toward minimizing this risk, the probability,
duration, and impact of such failures should be considered
for each system and its components.
8.4 Other Point Sources
The identification of other point sources within the planning ^
area, possible control options, and feasible controls should be included
in point source subplans. In particular, private wastewater systems
should be evaluated, preferably in conjunction with the municipal
wastewater facilities. Information regarding planned capacity of such
systems should be sought from private wastewater management agencies.
Planned capacity should be reviewed for consistency with future waste
load reductions. Any point sources required to obtain permits should
be included in point source subplans.
8.5 Combined Sewer Discharges
A. Introduction fl
Combined sewer overflows can be sources of significant
quantities of pollutants. Since they are an integral part of the
municipal wastewater collection system, untreated overflows from
combined sewers pose an added threat to public health.
Various techniques for controlling and treating combined
storm and sanitary sewer flows can be incorporated into alternative
areawide subplans for point sources. Quite often, these problems
can be substantially reduced through effective control of the
sources and/or the runoff before it enters the combined sewer
systems, as is discussed in Chapter 7. The most cost-effective
combination of controlling the problems at their source or controlling *
the runoff once it enters the stormwater system can be made in
the later steps of the planning process where alternative subplans
for point and nonpoint sources are combined into alternative
plans. (Chapter 3.6.E.)
8-14
-------
B. Inventory Existing Conditions
An inventory of existing combined sewer systems should be
conducted to the extent data are available; the inventory should
include locations and condition of intake bypasses, pipes, regulatory
equipment and other features, and an assessment of both the
existing performance of the system and its optimum performance
with intensive management, operation and maintenance. Information
on flow variations, design capacities, wastewater constituents,
and waste loads is also needed. Where flow records are lacking,
estimates of overflows and discharges based upon observations
should be correlated with rainfall amounts. Wasteload estimates
should be based on pollutant sampling and subsequent tests for
dissolved oxygen (DO), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), ammonia
nitrogen (NHo-N), phosphates (PoOr), total solids (TS), suspended
solids (SS), toxics, and both total and fecal coliform counts.
C. Estimate Future Haste Loads and Flows
To provide a basis for planning of control measures, forecasts
should be made of the waste load magnitude, intensity, and duration
of the problems associated with discharges throughout the planning
period. Information on existing discharges can provide a convenient
base for the estimates. Flow volumes and waste loads during
storm periods should be related to the tributary drainage area;
the resulting information can permit forecasting of flow volumes
and waste load increases resulting from future changes in land
use and development. This information can provide the basis for
estimating flows in combined sewer systems within the planning
area. Adjustments in projections should be made to account for
density changes, reduction in pollutant discharges due to future
protection of environmentally sensitive areas as reflected in the
land use plan, and probable flow and waste reduction measures.
D. Develop and Evaluate Alternatives
The development of alternative areawide control of combined
sewer overflows involves the systematic comparison of feasible
control options, both structural and non-structural. Operational
strategies should be explored for the entire system to maximize
use of the system capacity. EPA research has demonstrated many
types of control and treatment techniques for combined sewer
overflows. Among these, storage options, both upstream from the
system or within the system, appear feasible. However, this
capacity would generally be limited to the most highly polluted
initial storm runoff from a low-frequency storm event (one chance
in one, to one chance in five of being equalled or exceeded
during any single year).
8-15
-------
Specific factors to be considered in the development evaluation
of combined sewer discharge subplan components are contained in
the following paragraphs. In general, the most cost-effective
solution will be a mixture of operation/maintenance and construction
techniques.
1. Flow and Haste Reduction
A variety of techniques can be used for reducing flow
volumes and waste amounts which enter the system. Consideration
of these techniques should be coordinated with nonpoint
source control options planned for the tributary drainage
area. They include:
a. Reduce disturbance of land cover and maintain surface
infiltration capacities;
b. Control patterns and densities of urban development;
c. Reduce nonpoint source runoff through control measures
for urban and construction activities;
d. Preserve or manage lands that have natural or existing
characteristics for retarding or reducing flow and surface
pollutants;
e. Control surface runoff and in-system runoff by use of
permeable material for paving, flow retardation structures,
and other means of storing and retarding runoff, including
planned intermittent shallow flooding of parking areas,
streets and other surfaces where damage would be minimal.
In State WQM planning, emphasis should be placed on use
of the above management practices as alternatives or supplements
to the control measures discussed below, as the former are
generally far more cost-effective and less environmentally
disruptive. Management of runoff is further discussed in
Chapter 7.
2. Alternative Control Techniques
Alternative control techniques that should be considered
in combined sewer overflows can be grouped into the following
five categories:
a. Separation of sewage and storm collection systems
(generally the most costly and least environmentally
acceptable approach);
8-16
-------
b. Operational control of the existing system (maximum
use of the system storage by computerized flow regulation
and subsequent treatment at the plant);
c. Storage at points within the system or at the point
of discharge, and subsequent treatment;
d. Direct treatment of overflows (in-line high rate
treatment methods);
e. High level of maintenance including periodic flushing
of sewer systems.
8.6 Industrial Wastewater
A. Introduction
The overall objective of planning for the control and treatment
of industrial wastewater is to provide the most efficient approach
for serving the present and future industrial wastewater treatment
needs of the area. Treatment techniques must meet the applicable
requirements of Sections 204, 301, 302, 304, 306, 307, and 316 of
the Act. Industries served by municipal systems must comply with
pretreatment and cost recovery requirements. Direct discharge of
industrial wastes to receiving waters must comply, at a minimum,
with the provisions of the pertinent Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and New Sources Performance Standards. Higher treatment levels
or internal wasteload reductions will be required where wasteload
allocations dictate more stringent restrictions. Application of
higher treatment levels to meet water quality standards can be
mitigated through restricting the location of future industrial
development to areas where receiving waters can more readily
assimilate the treated wastewater. Control of industrial location
should be incorporated into the land use plan with recognition of
other constraints such as air quality control.
The procedures for evaluating industrial waste sources and
problems are basically parallel to those presented for municipal
wastewater systems in section 8.3 of this chapter.
Wastewater flows from all major industrial sources in the
area should be accurately assessed. Existing information should
be used where available, including information on those industries
that discharge into municipal systems. To estimate design flows
and wasteload reductions, information is needed on average flow
rates, flow variations, seasonal variations, wastewater characteristics
and constituents, and mode of disposal. Particular emphasis
should be given to toxic constituents within the wastes and to
thermal pollutants present. Forecasts should be made of the
8-17
-------
future variations of wasteloads and flows over the planning
period and the discharge locations of those wastes. These forecasts
should be based upon economic and industrial trends, types of
industries and constituents of associated wastes, location constraints
imposed by land use plans, and other restrictions imposed by
industrial permits and air quality implementation plans. Attention
should be given to estimating waste sludges and slurries generated
by the industries as well as to the influence that industrial
loads will have on treatment plant sludge. The effects of user
charges, pretreatment, and effluent limitations guidelines or *
higher treatment levels on water and wastewater flows should be
incorporated into the projections.
B. Develop and Evaluate Alternatives
•?
The development of alternative approaches for treatment of
industrial wastes and the degree of treatment involves a systematic
comparison of the following options:
1. Pretreatment and discharge of wastewater to municipal
systems;
2. Direct treatment by individual industries and discharge
of wastewater into receiving waters;
3. Direct treatment and discharge by groups of industries; 4k
4. Reuse of industrial wastewater;
5. Land application.
In conjunction with each of the above options, consideration
should be given to discharge to either water or land and to the
effects of flow and waste reduction on internal recycling and
process changes. Areawide options should be identified in terms
of meeting wasteload allocation constraints and compared to
provide a rough assessment of costs and impact. Consideration
should also be given to institutional constraints and feasibility.
Specific issues that might be addressed in formulating alterntaives *
are included in the following paragraphs:
1. Flow and Waste Reduction
The flow and waste reduction as it relates to those
industries that discharge or will discharge into municipal
systems should be assessed. Increasingly stringent technical
and financial requirements on industry should lead to process
changes that use less water and create less wastewater.
8-13
-------
2. Minimum Effluent Limitations
Industrial wastewater treatment must comply with the
minimum treatment requirements for Best Practicable Control
Technology (BPT) anc| Best Available Control Technology (BAT)
by 1977 and 1983, respectively. These treatment requirements
are set forth for the industries cited in Section 306 of the
Act in a series of EPA documents entitled "Development Document
for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for Point Source Industry." These
guidelines contain criteria for each industry for Best Practicable
Control Technology Currently Available (known commonly as
BPT) and Best Available Control Technology Economically
Attainable (known as BAT). The guidelines also provide
minimum criteria for New Source Performance Standards and New
Source Pretreatment Standards.
3. Joint vs. Separate Municipal and Industrial Facilities
Municipal waste treatment systems should be planned to
serve industrial users of the area whenever practicable and
cost-effective. Because of the unusual economy of scale
associated with larger municipal-industrial facilities, as
compared to separate municipal and industrial facilities, a
joint system will often be cost-effective. In many cases,
however, it may be more economical to have separate industrial
treatment facilities because of the characteristics and
quantities of industrial waste, industrial pretreatment
requirements, and industrial locations and groupings which
facilitate joint industrial treatment and/or reuse of industrial
wastewater. These considerations are also relevant to the
cost and effectiveness of sludge disposal options for each
alternative facility.
Industrial use of municipal facilities should be encouraged
where total costs would be minimized. Where industrial flow
handled by municipal systems is significant, cost of separate
treatment of industrial wastes versus cost of pretreatment
and joint municipal-industrial facilities should be compared.
This involves comparing the incremental cost of the municipal
facilities required to transport, treat, and dispose industrial
wastes (and the costs of corresponding pretreatment required)
with the cost of separate industrial treatment and disposal
facilities of those wastes. In particular, the analysis
should cover those industries desiring, but not receiving,
municipal, service when facilities planning is initiated.
8-19
-------
4- Pretreatment and Cost Recovery
Industrial wastes served by municipal systems must comply
with industrial pretreatment and cost recovery regulations.
The pretrt-ainient regulations basically require the removal of
industrial waste constituents that are not compatible with
the municipal wabtewater treatment process. Compatible
wastes, generally BOD and suspended solids, can be passed to
the municipal plant for treatment. The cost recovery regulations
prescribe that industrial users must bear a proportionate
share of the cost of operating and maintaining the municipal
system and must, repay the portion of the Federal grant attributed
to that waste. Industrial sites should be located where
receiving waters can more readily assimilate the residual
wastes and associated nonpoint source runoff. Such control
of industrial locations should be incorporated into the land
use plan and recognize other constraints such as air quality
control.
8.7 Development u_r_ A1 tivnative Subplans
The alternative vubplans for point source controls should correspond
to alternative WdSteload allocation sets for design conditions for
meeting water quality standards under both dry weather and rainfall
conditions. At least one subplan should be developed to correspond to
each wasteload allocation set. Subplans for continuous point sources,
primarily from municipal and industrial treatment works, should satisfy
the wasteload allocation sets for dry weather conditions. Subplans
for combined sewer flows should correspond to wasteload reductions for
design conditions reflecting rainfall.
A. CoritimuxiS and Seasonal Point Source Subplans
Investigation of controls for municipal and industrial wastewater
may reveal control options that do not correspond to the target
wasteload reduction sets previously considered. Additional
wasteload reduction sets should be developed if necessary to
enable consideration of reasonable point source control techniques.
B- Irvten^Jtte^nt Point Source Subplans
Subplans for intermittent point sources such as combined
sewer discharges should correspond to target wasteload reduction
sets prepared to enable standards to be met under wet weather
conditions. As discussed in Chapter 3, calculation of treatment
levels required to meet standards at wet weather conditions
should be based on point source treatment levels established for
dry weather conditions. Thus, the additional wasteloads carried
to streams after rain should be dealt with through load reduction
for intermittent point sources and nonpoint sources.
8-20
-------
C. Disposal of Residual Hastes
Point source subplans should provide for the disposal of
sewage treatment plant residual wastes and should conform with an
areawide program of solid waste disposal.
D. Description of Alternative Subplans
Following the screening of the system alternatives, the
following information on the alternative subplans should be
presented as an input to the development of pollution control
alternatives (refer to Chapter 3.6.E.).
o Wasteload characteristics of each alternative expressed
in appropriate units for relating to the water quality
prediction model;
o Total cost of each alternative expressed as its present
value or average equivalent value of capital and operating
costs for the overall alternative and subsystem components;
o Reliability of each alternative and subsystem included
in each alternative;
o Significant environmental effects of each alternative
consistent with NEPA procedures, including a specific
statement on future development impact;
o Contribution of each alternative to other water-related
objectives of the planning area.
8-21
-------
CHAPTER 9
MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
9.1 Introduction
Institutional arrangements for water quality management are the
formal structure of affected government units responsible for implementing
the plan. Units within this structure must have adequate authority to
carry out the full range of management responsibilities (functions)
including, particularly, the regulatory and waste treatment management
requirements of the Act. It is also essential that the arrangements
assure proper management and accountability for program operations.
Sufficient institutional arrangements and authority for plan
implementation may exist when water quality management planning begins.
However, the specific authority required by the Act to be vested in the
implementing agency(s) will rarely have been delegated under State law
to any particular government entity. Where sufficient institutional
arrangements and authority do not exist, enabling legislation must be
sought and/or arrangements for plan implementation must be created.
Management agency designations cannot be fully approved by EPA unless
the agencies have adequate statutory authority and the regulatory
programs required to implement the plan.
The planning agency should take the lead role in formulating
institutional arrangements in conjunction with other State and local
agencies. This chapter discusses the general responsibilities of the
implementing agency(s), the particular tasks associated with the regulatory
and waste treatment management programs and issues associated with the
selection of appropriate institutional arrangements.
9.2 General Management Responsibilities
The implementation of a State water quality management plan depends
upon the implementing agency(s) carrying out a number of related functions
for which they must be prepared through adequate authority, resources
and organization.
A. Program Supervision and Coordination
Institutional arrangements must assure that the overall program
of waste treatment and regulation of pollution sources is coordinated,
the plan implemented, and its performance assessed. It is essential
that overall supervision of the program and accountability for its
operation be achieved through the designation of an agency to possess
the authority and resources for program oversight. The selection of
the appropriate unit to which this responsibility will be allocated
9-1
-------
will require careful consultation among all the major institutions
affected by the State WQM planning process. Program supervision
is needed both at the State level and in each planning area. A
lead agency should also be selected for each planning area to
supervise planning activities within the area.
B. Continuous Planning
Because implementing a program to abate all sources of water
pollution will require continual attention to changing conditions
and pollution control needs, continuing planning is an integral
part of the State WQM Plan. This continuing planning responsibility
must be allocated within the institutional framework. This
responsibility may be delegated to a lead agency within each planning
area.
C. Fiscal Management
A major responsibility of institutions implementing the State
WQM Plan will be obtaining and budgeting the financial resources
necessary for plan implementation. Among other things, this
will mean establishing financial arrangements to support the
regulatory and waste treatment programs, together with arrangements
for the funding of continuing planning operations and other
administrative expenses. Since financial arrangements are a crucial
component in an effective management strategy, their detailed
operation must be clearly established prior to plan implementation.
Financial arrangements are discussed in more detail in Chapter 12.
9.3 Regulatory Program
The regulatory program formulated by the agency must contain the
following elements specified in Sec. 208(b)(2)(C) of the Act:
1. The identification of all pollution sources in each planning
area and an indication of which agencies have been designated
for their regulation.
2. An indication that agency(s) with regulatory responsibility
possess the statutory authority, or have initiated legislative
proposals to obtain the authority to carry out this activity
and to utilize the specific forms of regulation called for in
the program.
3. An indication of which form(s) of regulation (land use, permits,
licenses, pretreatment standards, associated fiscal policies, etc.)
will be applied to pollution sources.
9-2
-------
4. Specification of the technical requirements to b° incorporated
into the regulation.
5. Provisions that those affected by regulation will have adequate
notice, rights of appeal, and other legal safeguard*- to encourage
full compliance.
A. Agency Selection
Many existing agencies with responsibilities h> the water quality
management area should be considered when arranging regulatory
responsibilities for specific pollution sources, in addition to
various State and local agencies, it may be posviH: *o utilize
regional agencies. For the regulation of point sources, these
agencies may include state air and water pollution control organiza-
tions, natural resource departments, public health agencies or
institutions responsible for the NPDES program. Regional and local
agencies might include governments of general jurisHirtion, sewage
treatment agencies, or special district author-Hi*^ . For nonpoint
source regulation, agencies might include Soil Conservation Districts,
State agricultural and forestry agencies, State land management
bureaus, and State soil and water conservation ac^n-ie" „
B. Statutory Requirements
The Act requires that a regulatory program iruJuHp the following:
1. To the extent practicable, provide for waste treatment
management on an areawide basis and for identification, evalua-
tion and control or treatment of all point and nonpoint
pollution sources;
2. Regulate the location, modification, and conduction of
any facilities within the area which may r^suH in .^ny discharge
in such area;
3. Assure tnat industrial or commercial wastes scharged into
any treatment works in the area meet applicaMo ore treatment
requirements.
The regulatory program is also affected by Sec. 208(b)(2)(F-K) which
requires that water quality management plans: 1) -'et forth procedures
and methods (including land use requirements) ro
extent feasible nonpoint pollution sources re'
silviculture, mining, and construction; and ?'
to the
agriculture,
ish processes
to protect ground and surface water quality through controls on
disposition of residual wastes and on land disposal oV pollutants.
9-3
-------
To meet the requirements of the Act, the implementing agency(s)
will need clear, explicit and overall authority for their regulatory
activities. They should not assume that the authority is implicit
or inherent in existing law. In some cases, the authority necessary
for some of the regulatory tasks may be present in governmental
entities, or combinations of them, to be included in the management
arrangements. In other cases, additional authority may be necessary
to carry out specific regulatory responsibilities. This may require
a delegation of authority from other state or federal agencies or
new state legislative enactments. It may be possible to acquire
necessary regulatory authority by amending existing legislation.
Instead of enacting new legislation or amending existing laws, it may
be advisable to include in the institutional arrangements, agencies
which already have the needed authority but may not normally be
involved in water pollution control. Examples of such agencies would
include those with regulatory power over land use and construction
activity.
C. Regulatory Controls
The regulatory controls are the specific measures used to regulate
a pollution source. There are several general forms of regulation
which may be used individually, or in combination, for regulatory
purposes. Additional regulatory controls are discussed in Ch. 6.
1. Land Use. Many land use control measures could be used in a
regulatory program. These include:
- authority over the use and development of public lands;
- soil conservation measures;
- flood plain or other critical area controls;
- zoning or subdivision controls exercised by local govern-
ments in collaboration with the state water quality program
2. Permits and Licenses. It is often possible to create permit
and/or licenses to accomplish many water quality management goals:
- NPDES permits may be issued with effluent standards that
assure des'ired water'quality;
- pretreatment permits may be required for effluents entering
wastewater treatment facilities to assure desired water-
quality;
- permits for other point sources; or permits and licenses
for activities generating nonpoint source pollution, may specify
criteria for siting, design, and performance of facilities and
operations.
9-4
-------
The effectiveness of any permit program depends upon the
availability of sanctions and adequate staffing. It is
important that planning agencies give careful attention to
providing adequate sanctions for the program and to assuring
the availability of resources necessary to implement them.
3. Standards. State water pollution control agencies have the
ability to create or to modify water quality standards. State
agencies may set water quality standards at more stringent
levels than the national guidelines in order to implement anti-
degradation policies. Like the use of permits for regulatory
purposes, the effectiveness of the program depends upon the
availability and use of effective sanctions for noncompliance
and adequate staffing.
4. Fiscal Policies. Various fiscal policies, such as taxation
and pricing, may be used to complement the regulatory program.
a. Pricing Policy
Pricing policy can be used to reduce the flow of wastewater
through metering. In this regard, there are two decisions
which must be made. The first, for many areas, is whether or
not to meter. Unless there are meters, charges cannot be
be assessed for incremental use, and therefore a pricing
policy cannot affect flow and waste reduction. Savings from
a reduction in water and wastewater flow must be balanced
against the costs of metering. Relevant savings and costs
apply to both the water and waste treatment systems.
If a decision is made to meter, or to meter certain classes
of users, the second decision is to determine the rate levels.
To encourage cost-effective choices on the part of users,
economic analysis indicates that at the margin of use, rates
should equal marginal costs. Rates should reflect the
incremental cost attributable to flow, the incremental cost of
BOD removal, etc.
In practice, and in current guidelines, the emphasis on
developing user charges has been on identifying average
costs attributable to flow removal of BOD or other constituents
While rates based on such estimates are not ideal, they have
been effective in inducing wastewater flow reduction and
industrial process change.
9-5
-------
b. Taxation Policy
Differential assessment ratios can serve as an inducement
to keep land in a nonurban classifiaction for open space or
low density. Such a policy permits owners to maintain land
in its present use, but does not prohibit its sale for a
more intensive use at a later date. The policy therefore
tends to slow down the rate of development, without completely
prohibiting it, but gives no assurance that the most environ-
mentally sensitive areas are given the most protection.
Other taxation policies should also be considered. For
example, sales tax exemptions, property tax exemptions, and
tax deductions can be used to pay or subsidize private
dischargers to encourage process changes to lower the genera-
tion of pollutants.
c. Public Investment Policy
The waste treatment facilities elements of the plan will
have a direct relationship with public investment policy.
The provision of sewerage service is one of the more important
public investment decisions an area can make. Careful
consideration must be given to ensuring that other public
investment policies and decisions are consistent with the plan.
Most important among these are transportation, water supply,
and public facilities. In developing the plan it is necessary
to ensure that areas scheduled to be sewered also receive
other necessary public facilities and services. Decisions
about public investments can be made to reinforce the jplan
and, in particular, the regulatory program. For example,
areas that are to be moderately developed should have a
transportation system adequate for that level but not for
extensive development.
D. Technical Requirements
To determine whether compliance with a regulatory program is
being achieved, the program should include a specification of the
type of pollutant to be regulated from each pollution source and
the level of control which is sought. The regulatory goal should
be clearly understood by those responsible for assuring compliance
and those regulated by the program. A more detailed discussion of
technical requirements may be found in Chapters 3.6, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
9-6
-------
E. Procedural Requirements
The regulatory program should incorporate adequate compliance
procedures and arrangements to protect the interest of those
affected by the program. The procedural arrangements in the
program should include at least the following:
1. A procedure for giving adequate notice to those regulated
by the plan concerning when, where, and how the regulation
will apply to them.
2. Information to regulated parties specifying how they are
expected to conform to the regulatory program.
3. A method for hearing and responding to grievances among
those affected by regulation.
4. A notice and hearing procedure for major regulatory decisions
made by the management agency(s).
5. Provisions for public participation in the administration
of the regulatory program.
In order to devise an effective regulatory strategy, it may be
useful to take an inventory of existing regulation for each
pollutant source category. Based upon an assessment of the adequacy
of existing regulation to deal with each pollutant problem, necessary
modifications of existing regulatory approaches can be proposed.
The need for additional legislation to establish adequate regulation
of pollution sources should be assessed as early as possible in the
planning process so that action may be taken to obtain the necessary
regulatory authority.
9.4 Waste Treatment Management Program
A waste treatment management program consists of all those activities
necessary to create, operate, finance, and enforce the waste treatment
provisions of the State WQM Plan. It is particularly important that
management agency(s) obtain the required authority for these tasks as
described in Section 208(c)(2) of the Act and that they develop effective
management strategies for implementing these responsibilities. Manage-
ment agencies should not rely upon implied powers for their authority
but should obtain explicit authority for their tasks. It is very likely
that some of the required authority will not be possessed by management
agency(s) when planning begins and will have to be explicitly obtained
before the management phase begins. The waste treatment management
tasks include all of those mentioned below.
9-7
-------
A. Securing Comprehensive Authority
Section 208(c)(2)(A) requires that there be adequate authority
"to carry out appropriate portions of an areawide waste treatment
management plan..." The tasks for which this authority is needed
are described in Sec. 208(b). Usually, this authority will be
distributed among several agencies in the 208 area. An important
planning task is to allocate, and sometimes to consolidate, this
authority among those units responsible for the management program.
The plan must identify agencies necessary to carry out the plan.
Section 208(c)(2)(B) requires that there be adequate authority
to "manage effectively waste treatment works and related facilities..."
in conformance with the plan. In this regard, the broad definition
of "treatment works" set forth in Sec. 212(2)(B) and discussed in
Chapter 8 should be kept in mind. Institutional arrangements must
incorporate some means of coordination among the agencies involved
in administering the plan so that conflicts can be resolved and
the plan properly enforced.
B. Operations Management
The Act requires in Section 208(c)(2)(C) that there be adequate
authority "directly or by contract, to design and construct new
works, and to operate and maintain new and existing works as
required by (the) plan..." Generally, existing waste treatment
agencies already have this authority. However, where works are
to be located outside the immediate jurisdiction, or when discharges
from outside the immediate jurisdiction are to be accepted, adequate
enabling legislation to meet this requirement may have to be enacted.
When approval of a superior agency is required, it should be secured
before a construction grant application is made. The management
plan should provide sufficient manpower, fiscal resources, and
administrative expertise to assure that the customary management
tasks associated with such a waste treatment operation are properly
discharged.
C. Financing
The Act requires in Section 208(c)(2)(D) that there shall be
adequate authority "to accept and utilize grants, or other funds
from any source for waste treatment management purposes." Most
waste treatment agencies have this authority under state law.
Where such authority does not exist, enabling legislation must
be passed. Some States have arrangements permitting State agencies
to redistribute grants among local government units, but the Act
requires that the full federal share of funding for treatment agencies
be distributed to the local units.
9-8
-------
Section 208(c)(2)(E-G) deals with other authority required in
relation to financial arrangements. It should be noted that
Sec. 204(b)(l)(A) and (B) require that all user charge arrangements
must assure that each user pay his proportionate share of service
costs and that there be full industrial cost recovery in the program.
Many existing arrangements for assessing user charges are not
likely to meet these tests. See Chapter 10 for a discussion of
user charges.
In addition to these specific statutory requirements, the
management agency(s) must be prepared to deal with the customary
fiscal responsibilities for program management, including the raising
and transfer of funds internally, and the apportionment of responsibility
for financing operating costs of the program among the constituent units.
D. Sanctions
An effective waste treatment program includes sanctions. Section
208(c)(2)(H) requires that there be adequate authority "to refuse to
receive any wastes from any municipality or subdivision thereof,
which does not comply with any provisions of (the) approved plan..."
This authority, which may be exercised by an appropriate state agency,
would be used only in extreme cases, and only if such measures as
negotiations, fines, additional charges, moratoria, and court settle-
ments have proven unsuccessful.
The Act also requires in Sec. 208(c)(2)(I) that there be adequate
authority "to accept for treatment industrial wastes." This authority
also extends to refusal of wastes which do not meet applicable pre-
treatment requirements as mentioned in Sec. 208(b)(2)(C)(iii).
Other grounds for refusal exist when an industry does not comply with
the State WQM Plan or violates applicable State or federal discharge
laws.
9.5 Basic Issues in Management Agency Designation
Many issues will have to be resolved to determine the management
agency(s) and institutional arrangements necessary to meet the requirements
of the Act. The basic issues are:
1. What agency will exercise responsibility for overall program
supervision and enforcement?
2. To what extent will the affected local governments be involved
in the management arrangements?
3. Will implementation responsibility be vested in a single agency
or diverse agencies?
9-9
-------
4. What will be the relationship between the management agency(r>)
implementing the State WQM Plan and those agency(s) implementing
portions of the State WQM Plan in designated 208 areas?
5. If consolidation of agency responsibilities is undertaken, how
will this be accomplished?
6. What decisions will be taken to assure that local land use
decisions do not adversely affect water quality?
7. To what degree will agencies be supported from tax revenue?
Attached (page 9-11) is a chart which suggests where responsibility
for major elements of plan implementation might be located.
A. Options in Institutional Arrangements
The choice of the agency(s) to implement the State WQM Plan
will probably be influenced by the number of governmental units
which possess or can secure the authority to manage the waste treat-
ment program and to implement the regulatory aspects of the State
WQM Plan. Generally, there are several approaches to consider:
1. Single Planning and Implementing Agency for Each Planning Area
One option is to establish a single planning and implementing
agency for all the area included in the plan. This would facilitate
greater coordination and continuity between planning and imple-
mentation than would be possible if these two responsibilities
were assigned to separate entities. If this approach is taken,
it is important to assure that the agency involved has sufficient
statutory authority to carry out the requirements of both planning
and implementation and that elected officials are included in
the planning process. This option might be especially appropriate
for carrying out State WQM Plans on public lands where a state or
federal agency could assume both planning and implementation
responsibility.
2. Single Planning and a Single Implementing Agency for Each
Planning Area
Another option is to divide the planning and implementation
responsibilities between two separate agencies. This would make
day-to-day coordination more difficult, but might facilitate
the implementation of the plan by requiring less reorganization
of existing agency authorities than might otherwise be needed.
Again, it is important that the planning agency have elected
9-10
-------
O>
4->
rO
-t->
CO
X
X
to
CO
t—t
oo
ro U
r— pi—
O S-
OJ 4->
CL (/>
OO -r-
Q
c;
oi
c
M- i-
O O>
>
t/> O
OJ CD
>
•r- O)
4-> in
rO O
4-> 0.
C i-
Ol 3
l/l D-
Ol
S- r—
CL ro
Oi S-
o: oi
c
OJ
CD
Lu UJ
O (J3
o
o
CO
t—H
00
OO
o
D.
-O
to
C
§J
to
oi
c
o
-13
ro
C
•r—
•o
i.
o
+-> o
c o
O) ^
E C
Oi O
CD-r-
ro to
c: -r-
0)
r— CL
03 3
i- to
Ol I
£ I
OJ
ro
cn
(O
to
3
O
C
o
o
I
4->
C
O)
OI
en
ro
c
rO
E
O
to
C
0
•r™
.(->
ro
3
CD
OI
QL
r—
S_
OI
sz
-t-J
o
-o
c
rO
O)
l/>
3
-o
C
rO
1
I
to
r~.
o
i-
•4->
C
o
o
4->
c
OI
E
OI
CO
ro
C
ro
l/>
0)
to
C
OI
q
r—
-o
c
ro
(/)
4->
tr—
E
s_
OI
CL
i
i
t/l
T3
S_
rO
•o
C
ro
+->
t/l
1
1
to
o>
•1—
(J
O
CL
rO
O
to
4->
C
O)
E
OI
en
ro
c
^i
c.
<1» 01
Sg
01.,-
ro j-J
S oi
CL
OJ O
4-J I
to I
cn
c:
•r-
o
c
ro
C
(/I
o
c
ro
to
1
9-11
-------
officials on its Advisory Board. This option might be necessary
if one agency conducted planning and another agency undertook
implementation responsibilities for public lands.
3. Single Planning Agency and Plural Implementing Agencies for Each
Planning Area
A third option would be a single planning agency and more than
one management agency. The use of multiple implementing agencies
might permit the gathering of sufficient authority and resources
for plan management without consolidation or other reorganization
of existing governmental bodies. While coordination between the
planning agency and the management agencies would be more difficult,
the plan might be more rapidly implemented. Economies of scale
in plan implementation, however, would not be likely due to frag-
mentation. Two approaches to securing supervision and enforcement
in plan implementation should be considered:
a. A single supervisory agency with clear responsibility and
resources for" overall management, coordination, and plan
enforcement.
b. Apportionment of some responsibilities for plan supervision
and enforcement among several agencies with one given the lead
role.
The advantage of fixing responsibility for supervision and enforce-
ment of the plan upon a single agency is clear accountability and
greater coherence in conflict resolution, plan coordination, and
overall management activities. Dividing responsibility for program
supervision and coordination among several agencies while designating
one as the lead agency may disturb existing agency powers and relation-
ships less and reduce the difficulties of formulating a satisfactory
management scheme.
4. Role of the State in Planning and Implementation under Options
Presented Above
For each planning area, the State may delegate both planning and
implementation responsibilities. However, if planning responsibilities
are delegated, a lead planning agency should be designated in each
planning area. Under any of the options discussed above, the State
is ulimately responsible for assuring plan implementation.
9-12
-------
B. Intergovernmental Agreements
No matter which of the above options is chosen, formal inter-
governmental agreements must be made. Adjustments in the authority
and in services of local, regional, or state governments in a State
WOM area may be effected by different forms of legal agreement and
statutory authorization.
1. Contract
Where a single agency already encompasses the entire §208 area,
other participating local units (county, metropolitan government
or metropolitan special district, etc.) of government may contract
with it to provide the services required.
2. Joint Exercise of Powers
Where they do not already exist, consolidated agencies may be
established jointly by the participating local units of government
Interlocal contracts or agreements may be utilized in such joint
exercise of powers.
3. Delegation of Responsibility
Where a new areawide agency is established, the State may
transfer functions to it from other local, regional, or state
agencies through appropriate enabling legislation.
C. A-95 Review
In accordance with OMB (Office of Management and Budget)
Circular A-95 Revised, dated November 13, 1973, all applicants under
federal programs which provide assistance to state, local, and area-
wide projects and activities planned on a multijurisdictional basis
must notify the appropriate state and areawide planning and develop-
ment clearinghouse for review and comment. The proposed application
will be reviewed for its consistency with areawide plans including
comprehensive planning, environmental concerns, water supply and
distribution systems, sewage facilities and waste treatment works,
and land use. In most cases, either a regional planning agency or
COG serves as the regional clearinghouse, and, as mentioned above,
may be utilized as the areawide planning agency under §208. As
part of its review responsibilities, the State should ensure that
any part proposed applications are consistent with State WQM Plans.
On the national level, EPA reviews the annual certification of
State plans.
9-13
-------
CHAPTER 10
FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
10.1 Introduction
Financial planning must be an integral part of the planning process.
The purpose of financial planning is to determine the methods and arrange-
ments which management agency(s) can use to finance the implementation of
a water quality management plan. A financial plan including a budget should
be developed to describe the sources of financing for the three functions to
be carried out by the management agency(s):
1. General management program, including program administration,
supervision and coordination, and continuing planning;
2. Regulatory program, including administrative activities and
possible capital outlays involved in compensation of land owners
affected by regulation;
3. Waste treatment management program, including planning, construction,
operation and administration of municipal facilities and other
public sector pollution control projects (including nonpoint source
abatement projects).
In order to budget for these activities of management agency(s), it
is useful to consider three types of costs that may be incurred in carrying
out the activities:
- capital construction costs;
- operational costs and revenue;
- indirect (overhead) costs.
In developing a financial plan, it is useful to distinguish the
activities in need of financing, the management agency(s) proposed to
administer the element of a plan, and the possible means of financing the
capital, operating, and indirect costs associated with that element of the
plan. The following section discusses the requirements of the Act pertain-
ing to three types of financing involved in carrying out a water quality
management plan. The next section (Ch. 10.3) discusses how these requirements
might be met in order to carry out management agency functions. The final
section (Ch. 10.4) suggests information to include in a financial plan.
10.2 Requirements of the Act
Provisions directly and indirectly affecting financial arrangements
are contained throughout the Act with those specifically affecting the State
WQM Plan set forth in Title II.
10-1
-------
A. Capital Construction Costs
1. S208(b)(2)(E) requires that the water quality management plan
include identification of the measures necessary to carry out
the plan including financing and the costs of carrying out the
plan within the necessary period of time. This applies to all
capital costs associated with point and nonpoint source controls.
2. §204(a)(4) requires that the applicant proposing to construct
treatment works agree to pay the non-Federal costs of such work.
3. S204(b)(l)(C) provides that the Administrator shall not
approve any grant for any treatment works unless he shall first
determine that the applicant has the financial capability to
insure adequate construction, operation, and maintenance of the
treatment works through the applicant's jurisdiction.
4. §208(c)(2)(C) requires that the waste treatment management
agency(s) have adequate authority directly or by contract to
design and construct new works and operate and maintain them.
5. S208(c)(2)(D) requires that waste treatment management agency(s)
have adequate authority to accept and utilize grants or other
funds from any source for waste treatment management purposes.
6. S208(c)(2)(F) requires that the waste treatment management
agency(s) have adequate authority to incur short and long term
indebtedness.
7. §204(b)(l)(B) provides that the Administrator shall not
approve any grant for any treatment works unless the applicant
has made provision for industrial cost recovery (recovery from
industrial users of the portion of the Federal share of treat-
ment works construction cost attributable to industrial waste
treatment).
8. Section 12 of the Act provides for an Environmental Financing
Authority under the Secretary of the Treasury. This Authority is
established to assure that inability to borrow necessary funds on
reasonable terms does not prevent state or local public bodies
from carrying out waste treatment works construction projects
eligible for assistance under the Act. The Authority is authorized
to purchase the financial obligations of these public bodies to
finance the non-Federal share of such construction.
B. Operational Costs and Assessment of Revenue
1. S204(b)(l)(C) provides that the Administrator shall not
approve any grant for any treatment works unless the applicant
10-2
-------
has financial capability to insure operation and maintenance
of the treatment works.
2. S208(c)(2)(E) provides that the waste treatment management
agency(s) must have adequate authority to raise revenues, includ-
ing the assessment of waste treatment charges, to implement all
elements of the plan.
3. S208(c)(2)(G) provides that the waste treatment management
agency(s) must have adequate authority to assure, in implementing
waste treatment management plan, that each participating
community pays its proportionate share of the treatment costs.
4. S204(b)(l)(A) provides that the Administrator shall not approve
any grants for any treatment works unless the applicant has adopted or
will adopt a system of user charges assuring that each recipient of waste
treatment services will pay its proportionate share of the cost of
operation and maintenance (including replacement) of any waste
treatment services provided by the applicant.
C. Indirect (Overhead) Costs to Be Financed
1. Continuing planning is an indirect cost to be financed by the
management agency. §208(b)(3) requires that the water quality
management plan shall be certified annually by the governor of
the state or his designee as being consistent with the applic-
able basin plan.
2. §208(b)(2)(F)-(K) provide that the management plan shall
include processes to identify and/or control nonpoint sources
of pollution. Nonpoint source planning is an especially
important part of continuing planning.
3. §201(e) provides that the Administrator shall encourage waste
treatment management which results in integrating facilities for
sewage treatment and recycling. It further provides that such
integrated facilities shall be designed and operated to produce
revenues in excess of capital and operation and maintenance costs
and that such revenues shall be used by the designated regional
management agency to aid in financing other environmental improve-
ment programs.
10.3 Development of Financial Plans
A. Capital Construction Costs
Capital costs will be incurred primarily in the construction
of waste treatment systems. However, in some cases, fixed capital
10-3
-------
investment may be necessary in order to finance a regulatory program
involving acquisition of land or compensation of landowners.
1. Waste Treatment Program
Due to the number and variety of methods for financing waste
the broad range of financial arrangements available rather than
follow any rigid formula. Some requirements of the Act should
present few if any difficulties with regard to financial arrange-
ments for treatment of wastes; others are more likely to cause
problems. Financial arrangements which should be relatively easy
to provide are as follows:
a. Capital funds may be raised or generated from the general
fund, particularly if the applicant is a government unit of
general jurisdiction.
b. Capital funds may be generated from grants or funds from
any other sources. In some instances, matching funds may be
required.
c. The capacity and ability to contract indicates a limited
ability to generate short-term indebtedness.
d. The capacity to incur short-term indebtedness may be demon-
strated by the ability to issue bond anticipation notes, grant
anticipation notes, or to borrow from state agencies. Such
short term indebtedness must, of course, comply with constitu-
tional limitations on borrowing and with any state or local
statutory requirements.
e. The capacity to incur long-term debt may be demonstrated
by the capacity to issue general obligation bonds, revenue
bonds, or the capacity to borrow from state agencies. Exercise
of this capacity to borrow is of course limited in many instances
by constitutional or statutory provisions. There must also be
compliance with state and local statutory requirements for the
issuance of bonds or the incurring of such long-term indebtedness.
Areas in which problems may be encountered in complying with the
Act include the following:
a. The industrial cost recovery requirements of the Act are
specifically covered in 40 CFR 35 Subpart E, of the grant regu-
lations and in Industrial Cost Recovery Guidelines (February 1976.)
Program Requirements Memorandum No. 75-10 provides that industrial
cost recovery charges may be allocated on a systemwide basis
provided that the treatment works project for which the grant
is made is substantially interconnected, with a goal to be
completely interconnected physically to all other portions of
the system. The degree to which a grantee's treatment works
constitutes a "system" is open for determination by the
Regional Administrator.
10-4
-------
If an industrial user discontinues use of the treatment
works its payment for industrial cost recovery ceases. This
does not, however, preclude local initiative for recovery
of the local share of capital costs from industry. Such local
recovery provisions are not subject to the ICR guidelines. In
addition, securing long-term contractual agreements with
industry for use of a facility may increase the incentive for
that industry to remain in the system.
b. In the event of consolidation of two or more areas or
agencies, each of which had incurred indebtedness and other
contractual obligations in supplying waste treatment services,
a legally acceptable method must be set forth for the consoli-
dated agency to assume payment of the debts and obligations.
Personnel contracts, retirement benefits, long-term supply
contracts, etc., should be paid particular attention.
c. In the event of treatment system consolidation, problems may
arise over the new waste treatment management agency reimbursing
the participating agencies for the value of their existing facili-
ties and assets. A fair and uniform method of determining the
values of these assets and a legally acceptable method of handling
the transfer should be set forth.
2. Regulatory Program
Capital outlays may be necessary in carrying out a regulatory
program over existing and future waste discharge; such outlays
might arise from land acquisition or compensation of landowners
for reduction in the value of their land due to development restric-
tions. These expenditures may be financed through some of the
financial arrangements discussed above—general funds, grants, or
bonds. Capital expenditure for land acquisition could be considered
as part of multi-objective programs such as programs for parks and
recreation. Alternative means for defraying potential capital
expenditures incurred by regulatory programs would include land
dedication requirements and incentives in subdivision regulations,
cluster zoning, planned unit development ordinances, and other self-
financing schemes for encouraging land development that is compatible
with environmental objectives.
10-5
-------
B. Operational Costs and Revenue Assessments
1. Waste Treatment Program
The Act provides two mechanisms for financing the operating
costs of waste treatment facilities:
a. User Charges. 40 CFR 35 Subpart E, and related guidelines
provide the basis for establishing user charges. As set forth
in these regulations and guidelines, the Act requires that each
recipient of waste treatment services pay its proportionate
share of costs of operation and maintenance. A decision by
the Comptroller General of the United States held that use of
ad valorem taxes for user charge systems does not satisfy the
requirements of P.L. 92-500. Uniform rates on volume among
classes of users will suffice if the classification reflects
the differences in cost of treatment among classes of users.
b. Participating communities' proportionate shares. In deter-
mining each participating community's proportionate share of
treatment costs, the differentials among communities should be
explained and justified. In the event that all participating
communities are charged on the same basis, justification should
be given. The provisions and effects of inter!oca! agreements
and contracts to supply waste treatment services should be
reviewed and set forth. The methods of charging users within
each of the participating communities should be defined. The
user charge requirement cannot be avoided by inter!oca! agree-
ments or contracts to supply waste treatment services. User
charge requirements must be reflected in determining the par-
ticipating communities' proportionate shares of treatment costs.
For pollution abatement projects not financed through the
construction grants program of the FWPCAA (for example., non-
point source abatement projects), the principle of effluent fees
or user charges should also be followed for financing operating
costs.
2. Regulatory Program
Locally established regulatory programs in which capital invest-
ments are incurred may also be financed through user charges. For
example, if land is acquired for protection of critical or flood
prone areas, recreational facilities on these lands could provide
a source of revenue to defray capital and operating expenses of such
projects.
10-6
-------
C. Indirect (Overhead) Costs
1. General Management Program
The overall management of State WQM Plan implementation, includ-
ing continuing planning, program administration, supervision, and
coordination, will necessitate specific sources of funding. The
following are examples of some of the activities of a management
program for which financing would be needed:
a. Program supervision and coordination:
- water quality monitoring and surveillance;
- development of revised work plans and State/EPA Agreement;
- performance evaluation for each planning area;
- determination of the need to revise elements of the plan and
delegation of revision to regional, State, or Federal
agencies;
- coordination with other planning programs;
- public participation in plan implementation.
b. Continuous planning:
- plan revision and updating;
- annual certification of plan.
c. Fiscal management:
- budget development;
- development of financial arrangements to implement plans;
- financial consulting with affected management agency(s)
during plan implementation.
The possible sources of financing for the general management
program might include general revenue, grants, bonds, and special
taxes and assessments. Since water quality management provides
specific services such as sewage treatment, nonpoint source
pollution abatement (including protection of property from flood
and erosion hazards), access to recreation opportunities, water
supply protection, fish and wildlife conservation and many other
benefits, the administrative costs for carrying out the State
WQMP should be assessed to those benefiting from the services
provided by plan implementation. Examples of financing mechanisms
directed to users of these services would include: water and
sewer charges, flood insurance premiums, portions of general taxes,
recreational user fees, and hunting and fishing licenses.
10-7
-------
10.4 Budget Preparation and Supporting Documentation
A. The plan must include a projection of costs of carrying out the
plan. This projection should be over a 20-year period. The
projection could distinguish between waste treatment, regulatory,
and general management activities of the agency(s) designated to
implement the plan. The projection could also break the costs of
carrying out these activities into capital, operating, and indirect
costs as appropriate. For each activity involved in plan implementation,
the budget should indicate the specific form(s) of financing to be
employed.
B. For activities and elements of the plan to be carried out in the
first five years of plan implementation, a more detailed 5-year projec-
tion including capital improvement budgeting and cash flow should be
provided. It should include start-up costs, carrying charges during
the first years of operation and similar nonrecurring costs associated
with plan implementation.
C. The method for obtaining budget approval for the 5-year capital
improvement budget should be described, and should indicate the
schedule for obtaining such approval.
D. Where an activity or element of the plan is to be financed by
increased taxes, charges, unused bonding capacity, or other increased
assessment through existing sources of financing, the budget should
indicate the present and projected charges.
E. The legal authority of the agency(s) to undertake the financing
necessary for plan implementation should be described in an opinion
letter from the legal counsel for the agency(s). This opinion letter
could also be prepared by counsel experts specialized in the field of
bond financing and State and local taxation.
10-8
-------
CHAPTER 11
COST ASSESSMENT CONSIDERATIONS
11.1 Introduction
The State Water Quality Management Plans are to include an estimate
of the cost of carrying out the plan. The costs to be assessed should
include capital, operating, administrative, and maintenance costs. These
costs can usually, be measured in monetary terms. Other costs, however, such
as social, environmental and economic costs, may be more difficult to quantify,
and may be described and evaluated in a more subjective way. Guidance on
such evaluation is provided in Chapter 13-
In determining an estimate of the cost of carrying out the plan, cost
estimates should be made for the following categories:
- municipal facilities;
- industrial facilities;
- nonpoint source control;
- urban and industrial stormwater systems;
- residual waste control;
- regulatory program;
- program management.
These cost assessments should be based on the best available data.
For example, cost estimates for municipal facilities should be based on
engineering plans, specifications, and detailed cost estimates when available.
Cost estimates for other abatement measures should also be based on engineering
designs and specifications to the extent that such details are available in
the descriptions of proposed abatement measures. Program management costs for
carrying out these plan elements should be distinguished by plan element or as
a separate category of administrative costs. Where the proposed abatement
measures are only described in general terms, a general estimate of their
cost should be undertaken (see Chapter 11.4). In addition, emphasis should
be placed on the cost estimates for plan elements to be implemented in the
first five years of the planning period. Due to a number of factors, includ-
ing changes in economic forecasts and population projections, cost estimates
beyond five years will be less accurate. Greater attention, therefore,
should be given to refining the accuracy of the estimates for the initial
five years.
11.2 Basic Concepts in Estimating Costs
A. Economic Cost
In considering the cost of implementing a plan, it is necessary to
distinguish between outlays and economic cost. In many instances cash
11-1
-------
outlays adequately represent costs, but sometimes a resource is
used, with no cash outlay. The cost in such a case is the value
of the resource in its best alternative use -- its "opportunity
cost." For example, acquiring public land for a treatment plant
may involve no cash outlay, but may have an opportunity cost in
terms of foregone recreation or commercial use. If opportunity
costs are not considered, plan selection will be biased towards those
options which do not require outlays, despite their other costs.
Moreover, the concept of opportunity cost accounts for the cost to
the community and Nation as a whole, not merely the cost to one
part or another.
B. Price Levels
Where costs are estimated for future periods, they should be
stated in terms of base period dollars. Future costs should not
reflect any expected overall increase in wages and prices, unless
there is reason to expect significant changes in relative prices
during the planning period. For example, due to the present energy
shortage, long term prospects are for higher energy costs. While
it is difficult to predict how much costs will rise, alternative
plans should be tested for the effect of higher energy costs.
C. Interest Rates
Discounting is a way to account for the opportunity cost of funds
invested in a project, in the sense that the funds could also have
been used productively in the private sector of the economy or in
some other public project. The applicable discount rate determines
the optimal choice between capital expenditures now versus higher
operating costs in the future, the optimal amount of reserve capacity
to build, and so on.
In discounting, the costs of a plan are stated in terms of their
present values. That is, future costs are discounted at an applicable
rate of interest back to some intial starting date, and added to the
initial capital costs. Alternatively, the present values may be
converted into equivalent annualized values. Standard procedures
are described in engineering, economics, and business finance texts.
The interest rate to be used in evaluating water-related public
projects is prescribed by the Water Resources Council, a Federal
inter-departmental group, in its "Principles and Standards for Plan-
ning Water and Related Land Resources", as amended by P.L. 93-251 (1974).
The rate specified by the Council is based on the interest rate on
Federal Securities with maturities of 15 years or more. The rate to
be used for each fiscal year is determined by the Council on July 1.
For fiscal year 1976, the rate is 6 1/8%.
11-2
-------
11.3 Specific Cost Questions
A. Sunk Costs and Salvage Values
Sunk costs and salvage values refer to capital assets in exist-
ence at the beginning or end of a program.
Sunk Costs. For simplicity, investments and cost commitments
made prior to or concurrent with the planning study are regarded
as sunk costs and are not included in the cost estimate. Such
investments and costs commitments include, for example: (1) invest-
ments in existing wastewater treatment facilities and associated
lands to be incorporated into a plan; (2) outstanding bond indebted-
ness. However, if inherited assets were to be disposed of -- for
instance, a small treatment plant scrapped and the land sold -- their
sale value would be treated as a credit to that plan.
Salvage Value. At the end of the planning period, land for
treatment works (including that used as part of the treatment process
or for ultimate disposal or residues), should be assumed to have a
salvage value eaual to its market value at the time of the analysis,
less any costs required to restore the lands to pre-project conditions.
Salvage value of land reclaimed by land treatment of sludge disposal
should be estimated as the value of the reclaimed land. Rights-of-
way and easements should be assigned a salvage value not greater
than the market value at the time of the analysis.
Permanent structures should be assumed to have a salvage value
at the end of the planning period if those structures can be expected
to continue fulfilling their planned use. Salvage value should be
based on the remaining functional life of the structure using a
straight line depreciation over the assumed functional life of the
structure. The same approach applies to process and auxiliary equip-
ment that will have usable value at the end of the planning period.
B. Capital and Operating Costs
Elements of total cost include capital construction cost, annual
operation and maintenance costs, and equipment replacement costs.
As set out in EPA cost-effectiveness guidelines (40 CFR 35),
capital costs for facilities include: cost of land, relocation and
right-of-way and easement acquisition; design engineering, field
exploration, and engineering services during construction; contractors'
costs, including overhead and profit; administrative and legal services,
including cost of bond sales; and startup costs such as operator train-
ing. Contingency allowances consistent with the level of complexity
and detail of the cost estimate are also included.
11-3
-------
The capital costs of a plan would include those incurred by
both public agencies and private parties. Treatment facilities
built by industrial companies for direct discharges or for pre-
treatment would be included in private costs.
Where waste and flow reduction measures are carried out by a
large number of industrial and household dischargers, it is diffi-
cult to estimate the private costs. Unless the costs have a bearing
on the choice of a cost-effective plan, such estimates are unnecessary.
Annual operating and maintenance costs for each alternate plan
must be established. These costs should be adequate to ensure effect-
ive and dependable operation and should include all costs for operating
and maintaining the facilities under study including power, labor,
parts, materials, overhead, chemicals and repair or replacement: of
equipment and structures.
Cost-effectiveness analysis requires establishing a service life
for each component and salvage values for components having service
lives longer than the planning period. The following service lives
are to be used, unless other periods can be justified:
Land Permanent
Structures 30-50 years
Process Equipment 15-30 years
Auxiliary Equipment 10-15 years
C. Administrative Costs
Water quality planning and management are likely to include a
number of ongoing costs for activities not always associated with
sewage facilities management. These activities include monitoring
of streams, monitoring the waste characteristics of major industrial
dischargers, periodic checks of infiltration and inflow, records of
storm and runoff characteristics, collecting and analyzing data on
residential water use, continuing planning, coordination with other
planning, public participation, and other program management responsi-
bilities. These functions are as important to the effectiveness of
a plan as the physical units in place. The costs should be included
in financial projections. Recovery of costs by direct charges --
e.g., permit fees, monitoring fees, etc. -- should be considered and
evaluated.
D. Accuracy of Cost Estimates
The accuracy of cost estimates for all point and nonpoint elements
of the plans should be sufficient to assure the selection of the most
cost-effective solution.
11-4
-------
The cost estimates should be sufficiently refined to provide a
basis for the 5-year financial budget discussed in Chapter 10.
Such estimates might be based upon preliminary engineering layouts
and designs, taking account of facilities in place. As discussed
in Chapter 10, financial budgets should cover the first five years;
therefore, the level of detail for cost estimates should be greater
for that period.
E. Present Values
Using the interest rate discussed in 11.2.C., the costs for
construction and operations, by year, should be discounted to the
proposed plan initiation date, to obtain the present value (or,
what is much the same thing, the annualized value) of the plan.
An example is given in EPA Guidance for Facilities Planning, May, 1975.
11.4 Generalized Cost Estimation
As explained in Chapter 3.3.C, in some cases there may be good reason
to develop particular plan elements at a more general level of detail than
would be needed if that element were to be immediately implemented. In
such cases, a generalized cost estimate for abating particular forms of
pollution would be sufficient. The following guidance discusses methods
for undertaking generalized cost estimates.
For some cost categories, such as for municipal facilities, there are
recognized methods of cost estimation. For other categories, such as non-
point source control, estimating procedures are not as well developed. All
of the categories listed in the introduction to this chapter are discussed
below. More definitive guidance can be provided for those categories
where more recognized cost estimation procedures exist.
A. Municipal Facilities Needs
Where facilities or areawide planning is in progress, the required
cost effective analyses can be used in cost estimation. For specific
facilities, the best sources are proposed contract costs from completed
plans and specifications. At a less advanced stage in facilities
planning, cost estimates based on firm or preliminary engineering
estimates, and costs of recently constructed facilities of a similar
nature should be used when available.
In the absence of completed facilities or areawide plans and
firm or preliminary engineering estimates, a cost estimation procedure
must be used. The generalized estimate of costs resulting from the
State WQM Plan does not constitute a final decision governing facil-
ities planning efforts. Rather, they represent the best estimate
for the future project to be used in the absence of better estimates.
11-5
-------
The treatment of wastewaters from various collection systems
at a single treatment facility can take advantage of the economies
of a large scale operation. Generally, justification of region-
alization requires a detailed analysis. The time for such an
analysis probably will not be available in the context of a pre-
liminary cost estimate. If the need for several facilities in a
limited area strongly suggests a centralized treatment plant, then
this possibility should be reflected in the cost estimates. This
option may not be evident at the local level; therefore, decisions
may have to be made at the basin level.
B. Industrial Facilities Needs
A generalized cost estimate for treating industrial wastes
discharged to a municipal system should be included in the estimate
of municipal needs. In those cases where industrial wastes are
treated and discharged directly to receiving waters, an estimate of
the cost should be included in the plan. Similarly, the plan should
identify pretreatment costs borne by industry.
In many instances, it will be difficult to estimate industrial
costs due to uncertainty as to the type of industry that might locate
in the planning area. The cost estimate should be based on the best
estimate of industrial growth and the types of industries likely to
locate in the area. Estimates of the volume and nature of the wastes
should take into consideration estimates of future processing and
control methods. Information on the range and average treatment costs
for particular industries in available in the Economic Analysis series
developed by EPA for Proposed Effluent Guidelines for various indus-
trial categories.
C. Nonpoint Source and Residual Waste Control Needs
Cost estimates of nonpoint source and residual waste control needs
should include estimates of cost for both structural and nonstructural
control measures. Costs associated with structural measures include
land acquisition and construction of facilities. Nonstructural costs
include staffing, administration of programs, and costs of compensa-
tion of landowners (if required) affected by regulatory measures.
The cost of existing programs in the planning area, elsewhere in
the State, or in other States can serve as a basis for cost estimation,
Recent studies often provide information on abatement costs and can
also serve as bases for estimates.
The cost estimates should be by agency and activity presented in
5-year increments over the planning period.
11-6
-------
D. Urban and Industrial Stormwater Systems
The cost estimates for urban and industrial stormwater systems
should be disaggregated to show: (1) cost of required improvements
to existing systems; and (2) cost of systems needed for areas not
served, over at least the 20-year planning period (in 5-year incre-
ments). Included in the cost assessment for urban and industrial
stormwater systems should be a generalized estimate of the effect
on capital construction costs brought about by the use of non-
structural controls as well as capital and annual operating costs
of such control programs. EPA is in the process of developing a
cost estimation procedure for stormwater systems. The procedure
should be available for use in Spring, 1976. If estimates are made
using other procedures, a discussion of the chosen procedure and
reasons for using it should be included with the cost estimate.
E. Regulatory Program and Monitoring
Costs associated with a regulatory program include staffing,
administration, and capital costs (e.g., land acquisition or land-
owner compensation). Many of the regulatory program costs will be
the same as those included in the costs for nonpoint source control
needs. For example, certain regulatory actions over silvicultural
practices may be part of the plan. Where such actions could be
listed as part of the nonpoint source control or as part of the
regulatory program, the cost estimates should be included with the
nonpoint source control needs.
As was the case with nonpoint source controls, cost estimates
should be based on data from existing programs, where available.
Data from programs in other States may be used but should be ad-
justed to reflect differences in economic conditions.
F. Program Management
Cost estimates for program management activities for those
elements of the State WQM Plan for which generalized estimates are
made should also be developed. Program management activities would
include costs of monitoring, technical assistance, administration of
regulatory programs, coordination with other planning activities, etc,
11-7
-------
CHAPTER 12
TECHNIQUES FOR COORDINATION
12.1 Introduction
Water quality management is affected by broad policies concerning land
use, regional development, and the many functional planning activities carried
out in a State. As a result, it will be necessary to coordinate State WQM
Plan development with related policies, planning activities and programs. Of
particular importance are those related programs listed in SI30.34. Included
in Chapter 2 is a discussion of the requirements for coordination. This
chapter outlines techniques for coordination and describes how they may be
integrated into the planning process.
12.2 Coordination Techniques
A. Planning Agency Designation
In many instances, agencies which may be designated by the governor to
be responsible for preparing and coordinating State WQM Plans will
also be responsible for other related programs. Such programs may include
air quality management, land use planning, coastal zone management, water
supply, solid waste management etc. In making designations, governors
should take into consideration other related activities of the agencies
to be designated. Coordination between related programs can be improved
when responsibility for the programs is lodged in the same agency.
B. Planning Area Designation -- Geographic Boundaries
As discussed in Chapter 2, planning area selection can be based on
hydrologic boundaries or political boundaries, or a combination of these.
Whichever approach is chosen, consideration should also be given to other
programs in the area. For example, an area may be involved in Air Quality
Maintenance Area (AQMA) Planning. In determining the State WQM boundaries,
it may be possible to overlap considerably with the AQMA boundaries. As
discussed below, this could facilitate the development of integrated work
plans and use of common data bases. While it will be very difficult to
make boundaries coterminous, it may be possible to achieve a considerable
overlap. In deciding upon planning area boundaries, major planning
activities and programs should be reviewed to determine if boundaries can
be designed to coincide with those of other programs.
C. State/EPA Agreement
The State/EPA agreement on level of detail and timing is, in effect,
a work program for the State WQM Plan effort. An agreement should be
drawn up for each basin or approved planning area. The agreement will
12-1
-------
set forth specific responsibilities and tasks needed to carry out the
State WQM Plan. Some of the tasks will be identical or similar to
those carried out under other programs. This is especially true of data
collection and projection of population, land use, and economic conditions.
State WQM Plans should utilize applicable information and analyses from
other programs and should identify this in the State/EPA Agreement.
Similarly, the planning agencies will be producing outputs that other
programs can use. This, too, should be identified in the agreement. In
some cases, it will be possible to carry out tasks jointly with other pro-
grams, especially data collection, projection, and analysis. To the
extent possible, specific tasks that will be coordinated should be identified
in the agreement. Coordination with other programs will be easier if
specific responsibilities are identified early and agreed upon.
D. Intergovernmental Agreements
After defining specific responsibilities and tasks, intergovernmental
agreements should be made to establish the responsibilities formally.
Such agreements may include contractual relationships, memoranda of
understanding, joint exercise of powers, and/or delegation of responsibility.
These are discussed with respect to plan implementation in Chapter 9.
E. Data
The data which will be needed to prepare a State WQM Plan will be
similar or identical to that needed or produced in other plans. This
is especially true of the population, economic, land use and air and
water quality data. The coordination between plans can be greatly
enhanced if consistent data bases and projections are used. To ensure
such consistency, it is often helpful if a common classification system
is used so that data can be compiled using a similar format. Planning
agencies should integrate their data requirements before gathering data,
so that information is transferable.
The feasibility of coordinating data collection and projection
depends on the timing of the planning efforts. If one is done much
earlier than others, more recent or comprehensive data may become
available by the time the latter planning effort is underway. If this
is the case, there may be adequate reason for modifying data and
projections.
Another problem develops when the planning areas overlap but are
not identical. In this case the projections in the overlapping areas
should be the same and those for the adjacent areas should not conflict.
That is, the growth rates for the entire area should be consistent.
12-2
-------
Predictions of pollution levels will be based in part on population
projections. These predictions will affect the selection of alternative
implementation strategies, which could in turn, necessitate modification
of the projections. This iterative process of revising projections must
also be coordinated so that conflicts do not arise.
F. Representation
Periodic consultation between agencies responsible for planning will
help ensure that plans are consistent. It is important, therefore, that
representatives of the planning agencies responsible for various pro-
grams be included in any advisory group which might be created to
ensure periodic consultation between the agencies. The Part 130 regu-
lations require the establishment of at' least one policy advisory committee.
Representatives of programs with a major relationship to the State WQM Plan
should be members of any advisory committees which are used. In addition, the
staffs of the planning agencies should develop a close working relationship.
For example, each agency could designate specific individuals to serve as
liaison to help ensure that necessary coordination is carried out in a timely
fashion. This would also help in identifying possible conflicts and resolving
them informally as they arise.
G. Evaluation of Alternative Strategies
Many of the management strategies which will be adopted as a result
of State WQM Planning will have an impact on other programs. The stra-
tegies resulting from other programs may affect the development of
State WQM Plans. It is important, therefore, that the evaluation of
alternative strategies include an analysis of impacts on the activities
of related programs. This is especially true of other environmental
programs, in particular those dealing with air quality. Many of the
measures incorporated in State WQM Plans to control point and nonpoint
sources affect land use which could, in turn, affect air quality. For
example, sewer interceptor and facilities location, restricting the
location of industrial development to areas where the receiving waters
have assimilative capacity, and restricting development in areas where
significant nonpoint pollution would result, are decisions which could
affect air quality. However, not all interaction between State WQM
Plans and air quality plans need result in conflict. Both plans, for
example, should favor better management of construction activities.
Measures such as minimal exposure periods for active construction areas,
or utilization of staged grading, seeding and sodding procedures would
reduce both runoff and fugitive dust problems. In general, State WQM
Plans should take advantage of complementary strategies by evaluating
12-3
-------
the effectiveness of various alternatives to determine their impact on
other related programs.
The planning agencies should make sure that they inform one another
about alternatives being considered and offer one another an opportunity
to review and comment on alternatives. Such comments should be consid-
ered during the evaluation process so that alternatives for one program
could not be selected that would conflict with implementation of the
plans for other programs. This review and comment should be undertaken
by the planning staffs and the advisory groups to the planning agencies.
H. Reporting
In order to keep the various planning agencies posted on current
developments, there should be some type of periodic or nrilepost report-
ing. This could take place quarterly or at the beginning and completion
of some subtask (e.g., data collection, projections, analysis of water
and air quality, etc.). Informal contacts would, of course, be more
frequent. Periodic or milepost reporting, however, would provide formal
documentation of the communication which had taken place.
In addition, a report should be periodically sent to the !:PA
regional office. The report should describe how representatives of
related programs are involved in an advisory capacity, any major meetings
which have been held, what information has been provided to each program,
how consistency in data and projections is being achieved, and any poten-
tial conflicts which may develop. This should be done at a minimum
of every 3 months in the format of the quarterly interim progress reports.
I. Resolving Conflicts
If potential conflicts arise during plan development, it is expected
that the planning agencies responsible will attempt to resolve them
informally. If this is not possible, in designated areas the conflict
should be referred up to the State level where the agencies responsible
for administering the respective programs would resolve it. As a final
resort, conflicts should be referred to the Regional Administrator for
mediation.
In the case that other federal agencies were involved in a dispute,
then EPA should meet with representatives of the affected agency to review
the situation and whenever possible to formulate recommendations for
resolving the dispute.
12-4
-------
J. Program Approval
After completion, the planning agencies responsible for related
programs should review each other's plans to ensure that there are
no conflicts. If the agencies have been involved in plan development,
no conflicts should arise when it comes time to review the plan. In
its review, EPA will evaluate the consistency of the State WOM Plan
with other programs. Comments provided by the agencies responsible
for the programs will be a major input to EPA's review.
K. Procedures for Coordination of Planning Programs
EPA has developed agreements and memoranda of understanding con-
cerning coordination of a number of planning programs that affect water
quality management planning. These agreements and memoranda utilize
many of the plan coordination approaches discussed in this chapter.
However, greater detail on coordinating particular aspects of each pro-
gram with water quality planning may be found in the following:
Interagency agreement to relate HUD 701 planning and EPA 208
planning, March 24, 1975.
Integrating 208 Planning and 701 Comprehensive Planning.
Program Guidance Memorandum AM-9, May 2, 1975.
Coordination of EPA Water Programs and Coastal Zone Management
Programs. Program Guidance Memorandum AM-11, September 29, 1975.
Coordinating 208 Planning and Air Quality Maintenance Area
Planning. Program Guidance Memorandum AM-14, October 30, 1975.
Joint agreement for interagency coordination of areawide waste
treatment management planning assistance to state and local
governments between the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Department of the Army, November 22, 1974.
12-5
-------
CHAPTER 13
ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT EVALUATION
13.1 Purpose
This chapter provides guidance for integrating environmental, social,
and economic impact evaluation into the planning process. It is intended
to meet, in part, the requirements of Sec. 102(2)(c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and regulations issued pursuant to that
Act. It is also intended to meet the requirements of Sec. 208(b)(2)(E)
which requires "the identification of the economic, social, and environmental
impact of carrying out the plan "
The evaluation must be viewed as an integral part of the planning
process. As such, it will be performed throughout the process rather
than after the selection of the plan, with citizens and local units of
government afforded the opportunity to participate in impact evaluation
from the beginning of the planning process. Affected citizens and units
of government will thus be better able to analyze the various alternatives,
to identify specific plan impacts, and to provide meaningful suggestions
and recommendations.
13.2 Environmental, Social and Economic Impact Evaluation Process
A. Inventory Existing Conditions
The purpose of inventorying existing conditions is twofold:
(1) to aid in goal and problem identification; and (2) to serve as
a basis for the analysis and comparison of alternatives. At a
minimum, the inventory should encompass the planning area and other
areas that would be affected by the plan. For example, land disposal
sites for effluent or sludge, other wastewater reuse sites, and the
down-stream river corridor that would be affected by effective water
quality management should be included. The inventory will undoubtedly
require additions as new problem areas are identified in the planning
process.
Most of the data needed for the inventory will be readily avail-
able in existing documents and may have been gathered for use elsewhere
in the planning process. This would be true, for example, for most
of the population, land use, and hydrological data. Additionally,
items four through fourteen in the inventory (p.3-2) are impact
categories which may be used in the plan selection process (Chapter 14)
to determine differences among the plan alternatives.
13-1
-------
Only that data which is relevant to the analysis of alternatives
or determination of impacts should be included. Thus, the inventory
may include but not necessarily be limited to the following:
1. Climate and precipitation;
2. Topography;
3. Geology;
4. Hydrology (surface and groundwater):
a. water quality
b. water quantity ^
c. water quality and quantity problems
d. water uses
e. water quality management
f. flood hazards;
5. Biology:
a. rare and endangered species
b. fish, shellfish and wildlife habitats including nursery
and spawning areas
c. fish, shellfish and wildlife community ^
d. benthic community structure •
6. Air quality;
7. Land uses:
a. existing land uses
b. land use planning and controls
c. amount, type, and intensity of growth (The growth data
should be of recent origin. There is no necessity to
examine growth trends further back than 1960).
d. soil types, permeability, and erodability
e. significant environmentally sensitive areas;
8. Wastewater management resources:
a. energy (power)
b. chemicals
c. land commitment; •
9. Population levels:
a. current
b. projected (5, 10, 15, and 20 years);
13-2
-------
10. Economic activity (gross assessment):
a. income per capita
b. agriculture
c. mining
d. manufacturing
e. service;
11. Employment trends including regional availability of
skilled manpower for treatment plant operation and
monitoring;
12. Other local, state, and federal projects having major
interaction with proposed water quality actions;
13. Public health;
14. Aesthetics:
a. recreational accessibility and activities
b. unique archeological, historical, scientific, and
cultural areas
c. noise pollution.
The inventory should also include identification of adopted
goals and pertinent constraints. Goals might typically include:
1. Preservation of high quality surface water;
2. Preservation of coastal or other wetlands;
3. Preservation or enhancement of fish, shellfish and wildlife;
4. Enhancement of municipal services.
Examples of constraints include:
1. Air quality regulations and implementation plans;
2. Local climate, topography, soils, etc.;
3. Restrictions on flood plain use or other land uses.
B. Evaluate the Existing Situation
Based upon the inventory, a brief analysis of the existing situation
should be conducted to prioritize pollution problems and sensitive
impact areas. This prioritization which will be a primary concern during
the remainder of the evaluation will require participation of the public
and local government agencies.
13-3
-------
C. Develop Baseline Projection
The inventory and evaluation of the existing situation will serve
as inputs into the development of a baseline projection. Construction
of a baseline projection of relevant environmental, social, and
economic factors (see Table 14.1) will enable evaluation of each
alternative. The baseline projections should be quantitative when data
are readily available. In other cases, it should be qualitative. The
baseline projection can be established by extrapolating present, indi-
cator trends over the planning period. In making this projection,
it should be assumed that no additional water quality actions will be
taken other than those that have already been approved.
D. Screen Options and Subplans
Both point and nonpoint control options as well as continuous
point source, intermittent point source, and nonpoint source subplans
should be screened according to the factors set forth in Chapters 7
and 8.
E. Evaluate Alternatives
After the alternatives have been developed, each of them should
be evaluated by comparing its impact to the baseline projection.
Special consideration should be given to those sensitive impact areas
identified in the evaluation of the existing situation.
A complete environmental assessment of each alternative is not
necessary, although the impact of both the structural and nonstructural
aspects of the plan should be considered in every case. Table 14.1
contains a list of those environmental, social and economic factors
believed to be generally most important. However, discretion should
be employed when using this table. When there .is no difference among
alternatives, a statement to that effect is sufficient. Similarly, a
statement will suffice when an alternative will have no perceptible
impact on a given factor.
Special attention should be given to long-term impacts, irreversi-
ble impacts, and indirect impacts such as induced development. Resource
and energy use associated with each alternative should also be high-
lighted. The results should be displayed in a format for use in public
meetings and other forms of public participation.
13.3 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan
The results of the environmental, social, and economic impact evaluation
will be used in the plan selection process (Chapter 14). Once a plan has
been selected, a complete description of the impact that the selected plan
13-4
-------
will have on the area's environment should be completed. The vast majority
of the data required to do this should be readily available from the eval-
uations already performed. This more detailed evaluation should describe
the impact of the proposed structural and nonstructural actions. Whenever
possible, the impact of each action on each affected environmental, social,
or economic category (see Table 14.1) should be described and displayed.
However, if more than one action affects a category, the cumulative impact
may be described. Impacts may be categorized as:
1. Primary (direct) or secondary (induced);
2. Beneficial or adverse;
3. Short or long term;
4. Avoidable or unavoidable;
5. Reversible or irreversible.
Included under irreversible impacts should be an evaluation of any
irreversible commitments of resources including energy. (See S6.304 (c-f)
of 40 CFR Part 6 for an explanation of these terms and examples.)
While emphasis should be given to the cumulative impacts of all elements
of the plan, more localized impacts of specific plan elements, such as
treatment plant locations, interceptor sewers, and industrial site locations,
should also be assessed and highlighted when judged significant. Greater
emphasis should be given to the localized impacts of individual projects
anticipated to be developed during the initial five years of plan implementation.
13-5
-------
CHAPTER 14
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES AND SELECTION OF PLAN
14.1 Purpose
This chapter provides guidance on the comparison of alternative plans
leading to the selection of a State water quality management plan. The
process presented here assumes that each of the alternatives, if implemented,
would meet all regulatory requirements and comply with appropriate goals
and objectives within specified limits of technical reliability. Plans
are to be compared in terms of the defined criteria of cost effectiveness
as discussed in Chapter 1, feasibility of plan implementation, and public
acceptability. Emphasis will also be placed upon drawing together the
evaluations already completed so that the alternatives can be more easily
discussed and compared. Finally, while public participation is necessary
throughout the planning process, it is essential that the public be involved
to a significant degree during this stage.
14.2 The Plan Selection Process
A. Assess Alternative Plans
No rigorous analytical method exists which will readily identify
the best plan for the area. As discussed in previous chapters, many
factors should be considered in comparing the alternatives. While
some of the factors, in particular cost assessments, can be quantified,
others can only be qualitatively assessed based upon professional
judgement, and the views of the public. Plan assessment involves the
comparison of all key factors deemed pertinent for reliable decision
making. Table 14.1 contains a list of those which are believed to be
generally most important. The inputs for that table are to be devel-
oped in the technical planning process (Chapter 3.8), the step at
which alternative plans are evaluated in light of information on
their cost, technical reliability, environmental, social and economic
impact, implementation feasibility and public acceptability. The
effects of the alternatives should be assessed quantitatively whenever
possible. In all other cases a qualitative assessment should be made.
Representatives from all affected groups should be involved in
the assessment of the alternative proposals. In most areas, affected
groups would include conservation groups, economic interests, local
elected officials, planning agencies, state departments of health,
water pollution control, and natural resources, the regional office
of EPA and the Policy Advisory Committee. The plan approval and
implementation process will be more efficient if the people respon-
sible for carrying it out fully understand the issues and contribute to
the assessment and recommendation of alternatives.
14-1
-------
B. Develop Recommended Plan
Once the alternative plans have been assessed, the planning
agency should be in a good position to compare the alternatives and
develop a recommended plan. A logical approach for comparing the
alternatives would be to identify initially that alternative which
will achieve water quality objectives at minimum monetary cost. This
least cost plan can serve as a base against which the increased costs
and additional effects of other alternatives can be compared. The
major environmental, social and economic impacts of this least cost
plan should be listed, including a discussion of the institutional
and financial issues that would be raised if the plan were recommended.
Most of the required impact information should be contained in Table
14.1. A suggested format for displaying the least cost plan is shown
in Table 14'.2.
The next step should be the identification of the incremental
monetary cost and incremental impacts of each of the remaining alter-
native plans in relation to the base plan. Information contained in
Table 14.1 would provide the basis for this incremental evaluation.
Description of alternatives should include the plan elements (such as
construction, zoning, operations, etc.) and measures or statements of
the changes in the impacts of those plan elements. In addition to
the environmental, social, and economic impact and institutional and
financial issues, additional benefits that could be gained or unde-
sirable situations that could be avoided should be described. The
alternatives should be described in such a way as to make comparisons
with the additional costs required as direct as possible. The results
may be summarized in the format of Table 14.3.
The planning agency should then conduct workshops for the elected
officials who will be reviewing and commenting on the proposed plan to
fully inform them of the consequences of implementing any of the alter-
native plans. The agency should also take note of their
responses to the alternatives to see if the alternatives can be changed
to improve plan acceptability. Since these workshops and the public
hearings to follow could very well result in requirements for sub-
stantial changes in the design of plan elements and for further analy-
sis of additional impacts, the agency should schedule resource; expen-
ditures to be able to respond fully to the need for additional modifi-
cations.
At the conclusion of the workshops, the planning agency should
recommend a single plan. The plan elements, costs, impacts, and
implementation issues can be summarized in the format shown in Table
14.2, accompanied by a brief report summarizing the process followed,
the alternatives considered, and the criteria used to reach a final
recommendation. The report and charts should be suitable for use at
public hearings.
14-2
-------
C. Hold Public Hearings to Present Proposed Plan
The planning agency should conduct formal public hearings on
the proposed plan and the alternatives considered in its development.
The planning agency should then respond to the issues raised at the
hearings and modify the proposed plan if appropriate (as judged by
the agency). The planning agency will then submit the proposed plan
to the appropriate governing bodies for review and recommendations.
14-3
-------
TABLE 14.1
COSTS AND EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS
Alternative Plans
Significant Effects P-1 P-2 P-3
1. Water Quality Goals
A. ^Contribution to goals and
objectives of the Act.
B. Contributions to other water-
related goals of the planning
area.
2. Technical Reliability
A. Frequency of plant upsets
B. Frequency of spills
C. Frequency and effects of
combined sewer overflows
D. Nonpoint source control
E. Regional availability of
skilled manpower for treat-
ment plant operation and
monitoring
3. Monetary Costs
A. Capital costs including discounted
deferred costs
(1) public
(2) private
(3) total
B. O.M. & R. Costs
(1) public
(2) private
(3) total
C. Net revenue (public)
D. Overhead and plan management
14-4
-------
TABLE 14.1 (cont)
COSTS AND EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS
Significant Effects Alternative Plans
E. Total average annual costs P-l P-2 P-3
(1) public
(2) private
(3) total
4. Environmental Effects
A. Hydrology (surface and groundwater)
(1) water quality
(2) water quantity
(3) water quality and quantity problems
(4) water uses
(5) flood hazards
B. Biology
(1) rare and endangered species
(2) fish, shellfish and wildlife habitats; including
nursery and spawning areas
(3) fish, shellfish and wildlife community
(4) benthic community structure
C. Air quality
D. Land
(1) change in land uses
(2) land use planning and controls
(3) amount, type and intensity of
growth (relate to land use)
(4) soil erosion damage
(5) significant environmentally
sensitive areas
E. Wastewater management resources
(1) energy (power)
(2) chemicals
(3) land commitment for planned
features including sludge disposal sites
5. Social and Economic Effects
A. Population changes (5, 10, 15, and 20 year
projections)
14-5
-------
TABLE 14.1 (cont)
COSTS AND EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS
Significant Effects Alternative Plans
B. Changes in economic activity P-1 _p_-2_ P-3
where appropriate
(1) income per capita
(2) agriculture
(3) mining
(4) manufacturing
(5) services
C. Dislocation of individuals, businesses,
or public services
D. Impact on other local, state and
federal projects having major
interaction with proposed water
quality actions
E. Public health
F. Aesthetics
(1) recreational accessibility and
activities
(2) unique archeological, historical,
scientific and cultural areas
(3) noise pollution
6. Implementation Feasibility
A. Legal authority
'B. Financial capacity
C. Practicability
D. Coordinative capacity
E. Public accountability
7. Public Acceptability
14-6
-------
PLAN ELEMENTS
1.
2.
3.
TOTAL COST $_
IMPACTS
TABLE 14.2
LEAST COST PLAN
(A summary list of planning, construction, zoning,
sludge and effluent disposal, operations, moni-
toring actions, etc., indicating their geographic
sites).
DESCRIPTION
Economic
1.
2.
.3.
Social
1.
2.
3.
Environmental
1.
2.
3.
IMPLEMENTATION
(Institutional and financial issues.)
14-7
-------
TABLE 14.3
ALTERNATIVE LEAST COST PLAN MODIFICATIONS
Plan Elements
1.
2.
3.
Least
Cost
Alternative
Alternative
A
Impacts
Cost
Increase
Alternative
B
Impacts
Cost
Increase
14-8
-------
GLOSSARY
The Act - Public Law 92-500. "This Act may be cited as the 'Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.'" (Act,
Section 1).
Base level technology - Minimum level of treatment required by the Act.
Basin - The term 'basin1 means the streams, rivers, tributaries, and
lakes and the total land and surface water area contained in
one of the major or minor basins defined by EPA, or any other
basin unit as agreed upon by the State(s) and the Regional
Administrator.
Best Available Technology (BAT) - "Not later than July 1, 1983, effluent
limitations for categories and classes of point sources, other
than publicly owned treatment works...shall require application
of the best available technology economically achievable for
such category or class, which will result in reasonable further
progress toward the national goal of eliminating the discharge
of all pollutants as determined in accordance with regulations
issued by the Administrator pursuant to section 304(b)(2) of
this Act...." (Act, Section 301(b)(2)(A)).
Best Practicable Control Technology (BPCT) - "Not later than July 1,
1977, effluent limitations for point sources, other than
publicly owned treatment works...shall require the application
of the best practicable control technology currently available
as defined by the Administrator pursuant to section 304(b) of
this Act " (Act, Section 301(b)(l)(A)). This is also referred
to as Best Practicable Technology (BPT).
Best Practicable Haste Treatment Technology (BPWTT) - "Waste treatment
management plans and practices shall provide for the application
of the best practicable waste treatment technology before any
discharge into receiving waters, including reclaiming and
recycling of water and confined disposal of pollutants so they
will not migrate to cause water or other environmental pollution...."
(Act, Section 201(b)).
Capital intensive - Measure requiring initial capital outlays for its
development and relatively little cost for operation and
maintenance.
Combined sewer - "A sewer intended to serve as a sanitary sewer and a
storm sewer, or as an industrial sewer and a storm sewer."
(40 CFR 35.905-2).
-------
Discharge of pollutants - "The term 'discharge of a pollutant' and the
term 'discharge of pollutants' each means (A) any addition
of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source,
(B) any addition of any pollutant to the waters of the contig-
uous zone or the ocean from any point source other than a
vessel or other floating craft." (Act, Section 502(12)).
Effjuent 1imitation - "The term 'effluent limitation' means any
restriction established by a State or the Administrator
on quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical,
physical, biological, and other constituents which are
discharged from point sources into navigable waters,, the
waters of the contiguous zone, or the ocean, including
schedules of compliance." (Act, Section 502 (11)).
Effluent limited segments - "Any segment where it is known that water
quality is meeting and will continue to meet applicable water
quality standards or where there is adequate demonstration
that water quality will meet applicable water quality standards
after the application of the effluent limitations required by
sections 301(b)(l)(B) and 301(b)(2)(A) of the Act." (40 CFR
130.2(o)(2)).
Facilities plan - The facility plan is the first step in a three step
process required to complete treatment works with federal
grants from the Environmental Protection Agency. It is to
assure that treatment works built under this program are
environmentally sound and cost-effective.
Infiltration - "The water entering a sewer system, including sewer
service connections, from the ground, through such means as,
but not limited to, defective pipes, pipe joints, connections,
and manhole walls. Infiltration does not include, and is
distinguished from, inflow." (40 CFR 35.905-9).
Inflow - "The water discharged into a sewer system, including service
connections, from such sources as, but not limited to, roof
leaders, cellar, yard and area drains, foundation drains,
cooling water dischargers, drains from spring and swampy ,
areas, manhole covers, cross connections from storm sewers and
combined sewers, catch basins, storm waters, surface runoff,
street wash waters, or drainage. Inflow does not include, and
is distinguished from, infiltration." (40 CFR 35.905-11).
Inplace pollution source - Time buildup of pollutant load deposited
in a receiving water bed and existing as a load upon that
receiving water.
Interim Facility - A temporary treatment facility, either public or private,
designed for a useful life of usually less than five years, and
with a treatment capacity usually less than five million gallons m
per day. ™
-------
Land use - The physical mode of utilization or conservation of a given
land area at a given point in time.
Land use controls - Methods for regulating the uses to which a given
land area may be put, including such things as zoning, sub-
division regulation, and flood-plain regulation.
Materials balance - An illustration of the principle of conservation
of matter; that is, an accounting may be performed of all
transfers of mass from one point or state to other points or
states, such that the total original mass is entirely accounted
for.
Maximum daily load - "Each plan shall include for each water quality
segment, or appropriate portion thereof, the total allowable
maximum daily load of relevant pollutants during critical
flow conditions for each specific water quality criterion
being violated or expected to be violated." (40 CFR 131.11(f)(!)),
Navigable waters - "The term 'navigable waters' means the waters of the
United States, including the territorial seas." (Act, Section
502(7)).
1983 goals - Pertains to goals outlined in Section 101(a) and elsewhere in
the Act.
1977 goals - Pertains to the July 1, 1977 milestone set by the Act,
particularly in terms of treatment technology and limitations.
Nonpoint source - Generalized discharge of waste which cannot be located
as to a specific source into a water body, as outlined in
Section 304(e) of the Act.
Permits - "The Administration may...issue a permit for the discharge of
any pollutant, or combination of pollutants. ..upon condition
that such discharge will meet either all applicable requirements
under Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, and 403 of this Act, or
prior to the taking of necessary implementing actions relating
to all such requirements, such conditions as the Administrator
determines necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act."
(Act, Section 402(a)(l)). "The Administrator shall authorize
a state, which he determines has the capability of administering
a permit program which will carry out the objective of this Act,
to issue permits for discharges into the navigable waters within
the jurisdiction of such state." (Act, Section 402(a)(5)). The
permit program is a part of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES).
-------
Planning process - Strategy for directing resources, establishing
priorities, scheduling actions, and reporting programs toward
achievement of program objectives.
Point source - "The term 'point source1 means any discernible, confined
and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe,
ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, con-
tainer, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or
vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may
be discharged." (Act, Section 502(14)).
Pollutant - "The term 'pollutant1 means dredged spoil, solid waste,
incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions,
chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials,
heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt
and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged
into water." (Act, Section 502(6)).
Pretreatment - "The Administrator shall...publish proposed regulations
establishing pretreatment standards for introduction of pollu-
tants into treatment works...which are publicly owned for those
pollutants which are determined not to be susceptible to treatment
by such treatment works or which would-interfere with the oper-
ation of such treatment works." (Act, Section 307(b)(l)). "Not
later than July 1, 1977...in the case of discharge into a
publicly owned treatment works...shall require compliance with
any applicable pretreatment requirements...under section 307
of this Act." (Act, Section 301(b)(l)(A)).
Residual waste - Those solid, liquid, or sludge substances from man's
activities in the urban, agricultural, mining and industrial
environment not discharged to water after collection and necess-
ary treatment.
Secondary treatment - "There shall be required...for publicly owned
treatment works in existence on July 1, 1977, or approved...
prior to June 30, 1974...effluent limitations based upon
secondary treatment as defined by the Administrator pursuant
to section 304(d)(l) of this Act." (Act, Section 301(b)(l)(B)).
"The Administrator...shall publish...information, in terms of
amounts of constituents and chemical, physical, and biological
characteristics of pollutants, on the degree of effluent
reduction attainable through the application of secondary
treatment." (Act, Section 304(d)(l)).
-------
State water quality standards - The term "State Water Quality Standards"
means those State adopted and Federally approved uses and criter-
ia that are legally applicable to the interstate and intrastate
waters. The water quality standards are incorporated by refer-
ence in Part 120 of Title 40 of Code of Federal Regulations.
Storm sewer - "A sewer intended to carry only storm waters, surface
run-off, street wash waters, and drainage." (40 CFR 35.905-22).
Upstream pollutant source - Source of pollutant discharged into the
receiving waters which is located upstream from the area of
consideration.
Haste load allocation - A waste load allocation for a segment is the
assignment of target loads to point, and to nonpoint sources
to achieve water quality standards in the most effective manner.
Waste treatment facilities - "Any devices and systems used in the storage,
treatment, recycling and reclamation of municipal sewage or
industrial wastes of a liquid nature...in addition...any other
method or system for preventing, abating, reducing, storing,
treating, separating, or disposing of municipal waste, including
waste in combined storm water and sanitary sewer systems." (Act,
Section 212(2)). Also termed treatment works.
Water quality limited segments - "Any segment where it is known that water
quality does not meet applicable water quality standards, and/or
is not expected to meet applicable water quality standards even
after the application of the effluent limitations required by
sections 301(b)(l)(B) and 301(b)(2)(A) of the Act." (40 CFR
-------
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR STATE WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT PLANNING
This bibliography has been prepared to assist those engaged
in State WQM Planning. The references have been arranged to
correspond to the planning process elements and outputs. Refer-
ences cited have been selected for their applicability to State
WQM Planning and for their availability.
Each reference is followed by a short abstract and, whenever
possible, by detailed price and ordering information. Instructions
for using the Government Printing Office and the National Technical
Information Service are also included on the last page.
-------
- 2 -
PLANNING PROCESS ELEMENTS
PROCESS DEVELOPMENT AND WORKPLAN CONTROL
Workplan Handbook for Section 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management
Planning^U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C. '75.Available upon request
from EPA Regional Offices.
Provides details on the preparation of areawide planning
workplans. The handbook provides examples of workplan
elements to assist locally designated planning agencies
in preparing 208 workplans.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM/INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
A Citizen's Guide to Clean Water. U.S. EPA. Wash. D.C. June '73.
Available upon request from U.S. EPA Office of Public Affairs (A-107)
Wash, D.C. 20460.
95 page booklet provides the layman with a good introduction
to the problem of water pollution and what can be done to solve
it including citizen action. Explains major EPA water pollution
abatement programs and emphasizes role of the citizen.
A Ladder of Public Participation, "Journal of the American Institute of
Planners", Vol. 35,no.4.Sherry R. Arnstein. Wash. D.C. July, '69.
Reprints of journals are available from Kraus Thomson Organization Ltd.,
Route 100, Millwood, N.Y. 10546, $3.75 per copy, State month and year of
journal desired.
A typology of citizen participation is offered using examples
from three federal social programs: urban renewal, anti-poverty,
and Model Cities. The typology, which is designed to be provoca-
tive, is arranged in a ladder pattern with each rung corresponding
to the extent of citizens's power in determining the plan and/or
program.
Agreement for Implementation of Section 3Q4(j) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972~Federal Register Vol.38
No. 225, Nov 25, '73.
Agreement between EPA and Departments of Interior,
Agriculture and Army on setting up 208 advisory
committees with representation of signatory agencies.
Analysis of New Techniques for Public Involvement in Water Planning.
Water Resources Bulletin Vol. 11, No. 2 page 329.April '75.BacF
issues available at $4.00 per copy from Dana Rhoads, American Water
Resources Association, St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Lab, Mississippi
River at 3rd Ave. S.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414.
-------
- 3 -
Several techniques that have potential for overcoming some of
the limitations of standard public involvement technioues have
recently been developed. This paper describes several of
these new techniques and analyzes each of them in terms of
their potential utility in water resources planning.
Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning. U.S. EPA. Wash. DC.
Nov '74.GPO (stock no. 625-620) or single copies available from
U.S. EPA Office of Public Affairs (A-107) Wash. D.C. 20460.
A 13 page booklet explaining the EPA's areawide waste treatment
management planning program under Section 208 of the Act. Explains
to layman what areawide planning is, what it can do, and how it
relates to other EPA programs. Explains roles of Federal, State,
and local agencies in the planning process. Suitable for public
information.
Citizen Participation Strategies, "Journal of the American Institute of
Planners". Edmund M. Burke. Wash. D.C. Sept '68. Reprints of journals
are available from Kraus Thomson Organization Ltd., Route 100, Millwood,
N.Y. 10546, $3.75 per copy. State month and year of journal desired.
Suggests that many of the problems planners and others have
had in involving the public in decision making can be resolved
by recognizing and adopting a strategy of participation specifi-
cally designed to fit the role and resources of a particular
organization. Five types of strategies are identified: Education-
therapy, behavioral change, staff supplement, cooptation, and
community power.
First Things First; A Strategy Against Water Pollution. U.S. EPA.
Wash. D.C. Sept "74.GPO (stock no. 551-507) or single copies available
from U.S. EPA Office of Public Affairs (A-107) Wash. D.C. 20460.
A 16 page booklet explaining the major elements of the strategy
used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the States
in their attack on water pollution, the problems faced and what
is being done about them. Suitable for public information.
Joint Agreement for Interagency Coordination of Areawide Waste Treatment
Management Planning Assistance to State and Local Governments between
EPA and the Department of the Army7Federal Reaister Vol. 40 No. 11,
Jan 16, ^5.
Agreement between EPA and Deparbnent of the Army which
established coordination between the Corps of Engineers
Urban Studies Program and the 208 Program.
Public Participation in Water Resources Planning. University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor. r7T. NTIS PB 204-245.
-------
- 4 -
Reviews public participation activities and procedures which have
been utilized in connection with governmental planning studies,
especially water resources planning studies. Discusses identi-
fication of public; functions and objectives; mechanisms for
securing involvement; and timing. Also presents a model for a
participatory planning process.
Selected Techniques for Soliciting Community Participation in
Transportation Planning.Julie Hetrick Schermer.New York, NY, '74.
Copies of this paper available upon request from Mr. William Reed,
Director of Publications, Parson, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc.
1 Penn Plaza, 250 W. 34th St., New York, NY 10001.
Five techniques for greater community participation recently
employed in major transportation planning projects are reviewed
and assessed in this paper. They are equally applicable to waste
treatment management planning and include "citizen committees",
"randomly selected participation groups", "open door policy",
"direct funding to community groups", and "planning balance sheet".
The Role of Citizen Advisory Groups in Water Resources Planning,
Publication No. 43.Madge Ertel, Water Resources Research Center,
University of Massachusetts at Amherst, July, '74. Available At $3.00
per copy from Water Resources Research Center, University of Mass.,
A211 Graduate Research Center, Amherst, Mass. 01002.
Report is the result of case study observation of the citizen
advisory groups operating in conjunction with three planning
studies. Describes the ways in which these groups have dealt
with problems and to generalize from their experience for the
benefit of other citizen advisory groups and planning agencies.
Concludes with a set of practical "guidelines" derived from this
research, for the use of planning agencies seeking to maximize
the effectiveness of citizen advisory groups.
Water Resources Decision Making on the Basis of the Public Interest. »
Report No. IWR Contract Report 75-1.U.S. Army Engineer Institute
for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Va, Feb '75. NTIS, AD/A 010 402
$4.25.
The concept of water resources decison making in the public
interest is both fundamental and elusive. This report discusses
alternative perspectives that have been suggested for defining
the public interest and provides an overview of the decision
making in involved in a typical water resources planning study.
It then examines various approaches to determining the pjblic
interest in preauthorization planning and decision making. ^
-------
- 5 -
ESTABLISHMENT OF PLAN OBJECTIVES
Guidelines for Areawide Waste Treatment Management. U.S. EPA.
Wash. D.C. Aug '75. Available upon request from TiPA Reaional
Offices.
Intended to assist 208 planning agencies in carrying
out their areawide waste treatment planning responsibilities
within designated area. It applies also to other agencies—
local, State and Federal—that may be involved in the Planning
process for those areas or in plan review procedures.
Policies and Procedures for State Continuing Planning Process. (4G cFR
Part 130). Federal Register, Vol. 40 No. 137 July 16,~T7S7""
These regulations describe the necessary elements of =? otcte's
continuing planning process, and therefore provide policies and
procedures for review, revision and approval of a State's
continuing planning process. Also provided is a mechanism for
satisfaction of the Statewide responsibilities of other sections
of the Act. They apply to phase I plans (those submitted
before July 1, '76.)"
Preparation of State Water Quality Management Plans (Proposed Rules).
(40 CFR Part 131).Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 137, July 16, '75.
These amended regulations describe the requirements for
preparation of water quality management plans and the
procedures governing plan adoption, submission, revision,
and EPA approval. These regulations apply to phase II plans
(those submitted after July 1, '76).
Preparation of Water Quality Management Plans. (40CFR Part 131)
Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 107, June 3, '74. (under revision)
These regulations describe requirements for preparation of basin
plans and the procedures governing basin plan adoption, submission,
revision, and EPA approval. They apply to phase I plans (those
submitted before July 1, '76).
DATA COLLECTION (economic, demographic, land use, environmental
impact, waste loads, monitoring program, water quality data)
PROJECTIONS OF WASTE LOADS (projection of economic, demographic,
land use factors to develop waste load projections, interim outputs,
related to facilities planning.)
-------
- 6 -
Design of Cost-Effective Water Quality Surveillance Systems, Report
No. EPA 600/5-74-0047"' U.S. EPA. Wash. D.C. Jan. '74. GPO, $4.05.
Presents the development and successful demonstration of
quantitative methods for the design of river basin water
quality surveillance systems for pollution abatement. The
methods provide a systematic approach to the consideration of
expected stream conditions, system characteristics, equipment
performance, and cost in the selection of a preferred system
design from amo'iq a number of candidates. Methods are compu-
terized and PLoqcams are detailed in the report.
Design with Natur e. Ian McHarg. Garden City: Natural History Press,
19()9. Published for the American Museum of Natural History. Ihe
Natural History Press, Garden City, NY, 501 Franklin Ave., Garden
City, NY 11530.
Demonstrates by using concrete examples how man's new knowledge
of ecology can be' applied to actual environments, both natural
ones such as seashores, lakes, rivers, and swamps and those that
man has created such as large cities. Emphasis is placed on the
concept of design with nature and showing how man can impose
design but "use ho the fullest, the potentialities and with them,
necessarily, the restrictive conditions - that nature offers."
Guidelines for Preparation of Water Quality Management Plans. U.S. EPA.
Wash. D.C.r7TT~ Available upon request from EPA Regional Offices.
Describe the preparation of basin plans pursuant to the
State continuing planning process (Section 303(e) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
and 40 CFR Part 130-131). They are intended for use as
the basin planning methodology by State and local personnel
in preparing water quality management plans.
1972 OBERS Projections; Economic Activity in the U.S.; Based on
Series E Population, Vol. I-VII. (U.S. Water Resources Council)".
Wash. D.C. 'TT. GFO, stock no.: Vol. I, 5245-0013, $3.05; *
Vol. II, 5245-00014, $2.50; Vol. Ill, 5245-00015, $3.10; Vol. IV,
5245-00016, $1.90; Vol. V, 5245-00017, $2.75; Vol. VI, 5245-00018,
$2.50; Vol. VII, 5245-00019, $2.75.
The projections in this report incorporate the Census
Bureau's 1972 "Series E" national population projection.
Vol. I: Concepts,, Methodology and summary data. Vol. II:
BEA Economic Areas, Vol.Ill: Water Resources Regions and
Subareas, Vol. TV: States, Vol. V: Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas, Vol. VI: Non-SMSA Portions of BEA Economic
Areas, Vol. VII: Non-SMSA Portions of Water Resources Subareas. M
-------
- 7 -
Program Guidance Memorandum AM-2. U.S. EPA, Water Planning Division.
Wash. D.C., March '75. Available upon request from EPA Regional Offices.
Sets forth policy and procedures concerning the use of interim
outputs to guide facilities planning after award of a 208
grant.
Program Guidance Memorandum AM-8. U.S. EPA, Water Planning Division
Wash. D.C. May '75.Available upon request from EPA Regional Office.
Transmits policy and decision rules to allow Regional Offices
to evaluate designated agency grant applications for acceptable
water quality analysis and modeling, waste load estimation, and
data collection efforts in proposed workplans for designated
208 areas.
Promoting Environmental Quality Through Urban Planning and Controls.
Report No. 600/5-73-015.U.S. EPA. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
Series, Feb '74. NTIS PB-227-090/8. $11.50.
Focuses on the changing awareness and current practices in
promoting environmental Quality through urban planning and
controls in local and metropolitan planning agencies. Includes
a review of planning practices in the 1960's related to environ-
mental quality; and a detailed examination of numerous planning
approaches and controls considered to be promising for future
environmental quality enhancement.
Stream Quality Preservation Through Planned Urban Development. U.S. EPA.
Report No. EPA R5-73-019.Socioeconomic Environmental Studies Series,
Wash. D.C. May '73. GPO, $2.60. NTIS PB 222-177.
The effects of a land use plan to restrict urban development
in areas critical to the water resouce system are identified
through empirical studies for example: relationships are
established between amount, density, type and location of urban
development, on the one hand, and stream water quality and stream
channel enlargement on the other.
The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control. U.S. Council on Environmental
Quality.Fred Bosselman and David Callies. Wash. D.C. GPO, stock no.
4111-0006, $2.75
A report on the innovative land use laws of several States. The
report examines in detail several different Statewide regulatory
systems, several systems where "critical areas" only are regulated
and several systems focusing on key types of land development. The
examinations are based primarily on a review of the key statutes
regulations and decisions and on interviews with administering
officials and other groups. Key issues that run through all systems
are synthesized.
-------
- 8 -
Urban Land Use Planning. F. Stuart Chapin, Jr. Urbana, Illinois:
University of Illinois Press, '65.
Focuses primarily on theory and methods with special attention
given to the techniques required in making analysis of land
use, in measuring trends, and in estimating present and
future requirements for the uses of land. Aspects concerned
with the legal basis of planning, its legislative controls »
and its administrative organization are specifically excluded
from detailed treatment.
WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS (Model selection, calibration, verification,
prediction of water quality impact of waste loads, waste load *
allocations—including interim outputs related to facilities
planning)
Guidelines for Preparation of Water Quality Management Plans. U.S. EPA.
Wash. D.C. '74.Available upon request from EPA Regional Offices.
Abstract: See previous reference
Program Guidance Memorandum AM-2. U.S. EPA, Water Planning Division
Wash. D.C.March '75.Available upon request from EPA Regional Offices.
Abstract: See previous reference ™
Simplified Mathematical Modeling of Water Quality, (with addendum).
U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C. March "71.Available from: Planning Assistance
and Policy Branch, (WH-554) U.S. EPA, Wash. D.C. 20460.
A general simplified methodology for the application of
mathematical models to the analysis of water quality. The
parameters modeled include certain dissolved oxygen in streams
and estuaries. The modeling efforts have been incorporated into
various tables, nomographs and figures, and along with some
technical data, may be used to estimate treatment levels to
meet specific water quality standards. ,
Information regarding the applicability and availability of other
specific water quality models is available from: Mr. William Somers,
Technical Assistance Section, Planning Assistance Branch (WH-554)
U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. 20460.
The following 208 planning process elements are the basis for developing
the 208 outputs which follow on the next pages. References on these
elements are broken down according to the 208 outputs which follow
-------
- 9 -
DEVELOPMENT OF ABATEMENT ALTERNATIVES
DEVELOPMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION ALTERNATIVES
(legal, financial, institutional analysis, proposed management
agency(s) and institutional arrangement to carry out abatement
programs, including needed regulatory programs)
IMPACT EVALUATION AND PLAN SELECTION
(environmental assessment, plan evaluation, plan selection
through public involvement)
PLAN REVIEW/APPROVAL
(local review and recommendation, State review/approval,
EPA review/approval)
208 OUTPUTS
Municipal and Industrial Treatment Works Program (first six)
INTERIM OUTPUTS FOR FACILITY PLANNING
Interim Output Evaluation Handbook for Section 208 Areawide Waste
Treatment Management Planning.U.S. EPA. Wash. D.C. '75. Available
upon request from EPA Regional Offices.
Deals with interim outputs expected within the first 9 months
of the two-year 208 areawide waste treatment management planning
program namely: service area delineation, population and land use
projections, flow and waste load projections, and waste load
allocation revisions.
Program Guidance Memorandum AM-2. U.S. EPA, Water Planning Division.
Wash. D.C.March '75.Available upon request from U.S. EPA Regional
Offices.
Abstract: See previous reference.
FURTHER FACILITY PLANNING
Guidance for Facilities Planning. U.S. EPA. Wash. D.C. May, '75.
Available upon request from EPA Regional Offices.
Suggests procedures for engineers, planners, municipalities
and local, State and Federal agencies to follow in seeking
grants for the construction of publicly owned treatment works.
The procedures are intended to assure that treatment works to
be constructed will be cost-effective, environmentally sound
and publicly accepted.
-------
- 10 -
Program Guidance Memorandum AM-1. U.S. EPA, Water Planning Division.
Wash. D.C.March '75.Available upon request from EPA Regional
Offices.
Transmits policy statement issued March 11, 1975 by the
Assistant for Water and Hazardous Materials on the subject
of the relationship between 201 facilities planning and
208 areawide planning, (attached)
SEWER AND HOOK-UP ORDINANCE
Problems and Approaches to Areawide Water Quality Management. Vol. I-IV.
U.S. EPA. School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana; University,
Wash. D.C. '73. NTIS PB-239-808. $25.00
This report deals with the issues of the adequate authority of
designated waste treatment management agencies to perform as
required by Section 208(c)(2) and related sections of the Act.
"Adequate authority" includes both the legal authority and the
management capability of the agencies. The report is based on
a legal analysis of the laws of the fifty states and of federal
legislation, and on a survey of existing waste treatment manage-
ment agencies. The study consists of a main report, an executive
summary, and two separately bound appendices: Appendix A- Suggested
Representative or Model legislation, Appendix B - States Reports.
WPCF Manual of Practice No. 3 Regulation of Sewer Use. Water Pollution
Control Federation.Wash. D.C. '68.Available from Water Pollution
Control Federation, 3900 Wisconsin Avenue, Wash. D.C. 20016, price $2.00
The manual presents the case for legally constituted guidelines
to regulate the use of public sewer systems. It does so through
presentation of a model sewer use ordinance and a detailed discussion
of its component parts.
PRETREATMENT ORDINANCES
Federal Guidelines, Pretreatment of Pollutants Introduced into Publicly
Owned Treatment Works.U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C. Oct '73.Available upon
request from EPA Regional Offices.
Guidelines established to assist municipalities, States, and
Federal agencies in developing requirements for the pretreatment
of wastewaters which are discharged to publicly owned treatment
works. Also explain relationship between pretreatment and effluent
limitations for a publicly owned treatment works.
Improved Procedures for Municipal Regulation of Industrial Discharges
to Public Sewers (forth coming).No report no. assigned.Draft avail-
able from U.S. EPA, Water Planning Division (WH-554), Wash. D.C. 20460.
-------
- 11 -
Reviews the current status of local government control of
industrial wastes discharged into oublicly owned t-teatment
works and finds them ineffective as a means of controlling
large scale industrial activities. The report ^uqqests an
effective and economical regulatory scheme for. complying with
the federal pretreatment and effluent standards and the require-
ments imposed on federally-financed treatment works. The
approach involves a contractual agreement between an industry
and a public entity for treatment of the industry'*; wastewater.
Problems and Approaches to Areawide Water Quality Management, Vol. I-IV.
School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana~Un1veTsTty, Wash. D.C.,
'73. NTIS PB-239-808. $25.00
Abstract: See previous abstract
DEFINITION OF INDUSTRIAL TREATMENT LEVELS AND TIB INTO
MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS
Design Criteria for Mechanical, Electric, Fluid Systems and Component
Reliability! U.S. EPA. Wash. D.C. NTIS PB-227-355/T*"'~~
Amplifies and supplements the Federal Guidelines for Design,
Operation, and Maintenance of Wastewater Treatment Facilities
with regard to establishing minimum standards ol reliability
for mechanical, electric and fluid systems and components.
Stresses component backup to attain system relinbjlity,
Effluent Guidelines and Development Documents. U.S, F;T"\. Wash. D.C.
The Effluent Guidelines Division of the Office of Water and
Hazardous Materials, EPA, has published effluent limitation
guidelines for existing industrial sources and standards of
performance and pretreatment standards for new industrial
sources. Effluent limitation guidelines and standards have
been published for each of a number of different industrial
categories. In addition, for each industrial category,
development documents have been published which contain
supportive data and rationales for the development of the
applicable effluent limitation guideline and performance
standard. While all of the effluent limitations guidelines
and development documents are too numerous to be referenced
here, information pertaining to specific industrial categories
can be obtained from, Ms. Frances Desselle, Affluent Guidelines
Division (WH-552) U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. 2046Q,
Federal Guidelines, Operation and Maintenance of Wastewater Treatment
Facilities^U.S. EPA. Wash. D.C. Aug "74. AvaiTaFl"" upon request
from EPA Regional Offices.
-------
12 -
These guidelines are intended to assist in assuring that all
aspects related to wastewater treatment plant Operation and
maintenance are appropriately considered by those responsible
for complying with grant requirements, specific effluent permit
criteria, and related water quality standards. They provide
information on the key elements that should be included in any
plan of operation for a wastewater treatment facility. Source
documents offering more detailed information are referenced
throughout.
FederalGuidelines, Pretreatment of Pollutants Introduced Into Publicly
Owned Treatment Works. U.S. EPA. Wash. D.C. Oct '73. Available upon
rGquest~from EPA Regional Offices.
Abstract: See previous reference.
Guidance^for Sewer System Evaluation. U.S. EPA. Wash. D.C. '74.
AvaTTaFle upon reauest from EPA Regional Offices. -
Intended to provide engineers, municipalities, regulatory
agencies with guidance on sewer system evaluation to determine
presence of excessive infiltration/inflow. Includes discussion
of physical surveys rainfall simulation preparatory cleaning
internal inspection and survey reports.
Waste Load Allocations in River Basin Plans.
River basin plans required under Section 303 of the Act V
contain waste load allocations for segments of streams
designated water quality limited. These allocations
would, of course, be useful in defining industrial treatment
levels.
ORDINANCES ON LOCATION OF PRIVATE AND INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
Problems and Approaches to Areawide Water Quality Management, Vol. I-IV.
U.S. EPATSchool of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indianai University,
Wash. D.C. '73. NTIS PB-239-808. $25.00
Abstract: See previous reference
*
RESIDUAL WASTE MANAGEMENT
Development of Residuals Management Strategies (forthcoming). U.S. EPA.
Report No. not assigned.Wash. D.C.Draft copy available from U.S. EPA
Water Planning Division (WH-554), Wash. D.C. 20460. «
Study of the development of strategies for managing residuals.
Contains step by step guidelines for identifying alternate
residuals management strategies and then evaluating and selecting
a strategy. Presents a residuals generation and discharge model
-------
- 13 -
which identifies different methods for complying with recent
federal legislation that requires a specified level of environ-
mental quality and identifies many points in the residuals
generation and discharge process at which physical methods can
be introduced or changes made, to reduce or alleviate the effect
of discharging residuals into the environment.
Evaluation of Land Application Systems, Technical Bulletin, EPA Report
No. EPA 520/9-75-001. U.S. EPA. WasR". D.C., March '75. GPO, NTIS
(awaiting number assignment).
Procedures are set forth to assist EPA personnel in evaluating
treatment systems that employ land application of municipal
wastewater. In addition information is provided which may be of
value to State, local and other Federal agencies. Consists of an
Evaluation Checklist, parallel background information and is
divided into three major parts dealing with: (1) facilities plans,
(2) design plans and specifications, and (3) operation and
maintenance manuals.
Information Package on Residual Waste Management. U.S. EPA. Wash. D.C.
Oct '75.Available upon request from U.S. EPA, Planning Assistance and
Policy Branch (WH-554) Wash. D.C. 20460.
Contains a bibliography of helpful publications. Provides
description and status of ongoing research and/or demonstration
projects dealing with residual waste management.
Land Application of Sewage Effluents and Sludges; Selected Abstracts,
Report No. EPA 660/2-74-042.U.S. EPA.National Environmental Research
Center, Corvallis, Oregon. 1974. GPO, $2.80, NTIS PB 235-386 $8.50
Combines selected abstracts from previous publications and
updates the sources abstracted into the year 1973. The 568
abstracts selected for inclusion are arranged in chronological
groupings and are identified as to emphasis on effluent or sludge.
Municipal Sewage Treatment; A Comparison of Alternatives. Council on
Environmental Quality and U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C., Feb ' 74. GPO.
Provides a single document which can be utilized on a comparative
basis, to develop preliminary selections of appropriate wastewater
treatment schemes for a municipality. The format of the text
allows the reader to compare various treatment strategies on an
energy, environmental or economic basis and to develop cost figures
which may better reflect a particular local situation.
-------
- 14 -
Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal/ Report No.
EPA 625/41-74-006.U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C., Oct'74.Available upon
request from U.S. EPA Office of Technology Transfer, CM#2 Rm 1014,
RD 677. Wash. D.C. 20460.
Presents a contemporary review of sludge processing technology
and the specific procedures to be considered, modified, and applied
to meet unique conditions. Emphasizes operational considerations
and interrrelationships of the various sludge treatment processes
to be considered before selecting the optimum design. Also
presents case histories of existing wastewater treatment plants
to illustrate the varous unit processes and results.
Wastewater Treatment and Reuse By Land Applicability, Vol. I, Report No.
EPA 660/2-73-006a.Vol. II 660/2-73-006b.U.S. EPA. Wash. D.C. Aug '73
GPO Vol. 1 - $1.10, Vol. II - $2.40
Report of a nationwide study of current knowledge and techniques
of land application of municipal treatment plant effluents and
industrial wastewaters. Information and data were gathered on
the many factors involved in system design and operation for the
three major land application approaches: irrigation, overland flow,
and infiltration-percolation. In addition, evaluations were made
of environmental effects, public health considerations, aind costs—
areas in which limited data are available.
URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Comparative Analysis of Urban Stormwater Models. U.S. EPA. Nov '74.
Available upon request from U.S. EPA, Planning Assistance and Policy
Branch (WH-554), Wash. D.C. 20460.
Eighteen mathematical models for the nonsteady simulation of
runoff in urban storm and combined sewerage systems were
reviewed in a study sponsored by EPA. Most of the models
evaluated include the nonsteady simulation of the rainfall-
runoff process and flow routing in sewers. A few also include
the simulation of wastewater quality, options for dimensioning
sewerage system components, and features for realtime control
of overflows during rainstorms.
Contributors of Urban Roadway Usage to Water Pollution, Report No.
EPA 600/2-75-004.U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C. March '75.NTIS no. not
assigned yet.
Study of contributions of motor vehicle usage to urban roadway
loading factors. Specific roadway study sites within the non-
industrial Washington, D.C. area were selected so as to provide
minimal interference from non-traffic-related land use activities
and thus isolate, as much as possible, the traffic-related
depositions.
-------
- 15 -
Practice in Detention of Stormwater Runoff. Herbert G. Poertner,
American Public Works Association, '74.NTIS PB-234-554.
On-site detention of runoff was investigated as an alternative
to other methods of urban stormwater runoff management. It was
found that this method, which involves collecting excess runoff
before it enters the main drainage system, can often be applied
an an effective and economical means of reducing peak runoff slow
rates to lessen or eliminate problems of flooding, pollution, soil
erosion, and siltation.
Urban Stormwater Management Research and Planning Projects for FY 1975
and FY 1976, Information Package. U.S. EPA. Wash. D.C. March '75.
Available upon request from U.S. EPA, Planning Assistance Branch (WH-554),
Wash. D.C. 20460.
Information contained in this report is concerned with urban
stormwater management. Well over one hundred projects were
reviewed and those selected to be included within this report
were chosen because of their contribution to the planning process
for urban stormwater management. Five areas within the planning
process are identified and projects are categorized aopropriately.
Also includes a list of bibliographies where information on projects
done prior to FY 75 is available.
Urban Stormwater Management and Technology: An Assessment, Report No.
EPA 670/2-74-040.U.S. EPA.National Environmental Research Center,
Cincinnati, '74. GPO, NTIS, PB 240-687/AS $11.50.
The results of a comprehensive investigation and assessment of
promising, completed, and ongoing urban stormwater projects,
representatives of the state-of-the-art in abatement theory and
technology. Presented in a textbook format, provides a compendium
of project information on management and technology alternatives
within a project framework of problem identification, evaluation
procedures and program assessment and selection.
Water Quality Management Planning for Urban Runoff. Report No.
EPA-440/9-75-004. U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C. Dec '74.NTIS PB 241-689/AS
$7.50
Provides technical assistance to state and local water quality
management planners to enable them to quantify within reasonable
limits the urban non-point water pollution problem in a local
planning area without extensive data generation, and to make a
preliminary evalution of cost-effective abatement and control
practices. Prescribes procedures for several levels of input,
each requiring more self-generated data, with increasingly
sophisticated results.
-------
- 16 -
Water Resources Protection Measures in Land Development; A Handbook
U.S. Dept. of Interior, Office of Water Resources.Wash. D.C.^4.
NTIS PB 236-049.
Description of measures that can become an integrated part of
urban development to lessen problems that would otherwise adversely
affect water resources. Measures are presented in groups and
related directly to the problems of runoff, erosion, sedimentation,
flooding, runoff pollution and increased sewage effluent discharge.
Each group is preceded by a flow chart that relates individual
measures to each other and can aid in the selection of alternative
techniques that follow a logical seouence.
NONPOINT SOURCES MANAGEMENT GENERAL
Methods for Identifying and Evaluating the Nature and Extent of
Nonpoint Sources of Pollutants, Report No. EPA 430/9-73-014."U.S. EPA
Wash. D.C. '73. GPO, $2.45
This report issued under Section 304(e) provides general
information on the identification and assessment of nonpoint
sources. Particular attention is paid to agriculture, silvi-
culture, mining, and construction.
Report on State Sediment Control Institutes Program, Report No.
EPA 440/9-75-001.U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C. April T75. GPO Stock No.
582-421/246.
This report resumes the results of 40 State sediment control
institutes sponsored by EPA, through a grant to the National
Association of Conservation Districts. The status of laws
in the states is covered and a model State law for sediment
control is included.
AGRICULTURAL SOURCE MANAGEMENT
Evaluation of Salinity Created by Irrigation Return Flows, Report No.
EPA-430/9-74-006.U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C. '74.GPO, $1.65.
Report provides general descriptions of the problems,
major problem areas, and remedial and control measures.
Methods and Practices for Controlling Water Pollution from Agricultural
Nonpoint Sources, Report No. EPA 430/9-73-015.U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C.
T7TGPO, $1.10.
Issued under Section 304(e), report provides general descrip-
tions of various measures that may be used to control agricultural
runoff. It is strongly directed to erosion and sediment control,
but nutrients, pesticides, and animal wastes are covered.
-------
- 17 -
Research Status on Effects of Land Application of Animal Wastes ,
Report No. EPA-660/2-75-010. U.S. EPA. Wash. D.C. NTIS awaiting
number assignment.
Report primarily resumes research results. However, in one
chapter, it outlines a procedure for estimation of the effects
of animal wastes on crop utilization nutrients.
Study of Current and Proposed Practices in Animal Waste Management,
Report No. EPA 430/9-74-003. U.S. EPA. Wash. D.C. Jan. '74.
GPO, $4.70.
Report briefly discusses various methods of disposal and/or
utilization of animal wastes. The report contains 362 pages
of annotated bibliography.
Numerous Soil Conservation Service, Agricultural Research Service,
and other EPA ORD Reports.
SILVICULTURAL SOURCE MANAGEMENT
Water Quality, Report No.
NTIS
Logging Roads and Protection of Water Quality, Report No. EPA
910/9-75-007. U.S. EPA. Seattle, Washington, March '75. NTI
no. not assigned yet.
Report provides discussions and data for design, construction,
use and maintenance of logging roads to prevent pollution.
An overview of logging roads problems is provided.
Processes, Procedures and Methods to Control Pollution from
Silvicultural Activities. Report No. EPA 430/9-73-010. U7s. EPA.
Wash. D.C. '73. GPO, $1.25.
This report issued under Section 304 (e), provides general
information on the nature of silviculture pollution control
problems and on control methods. General predictive techniques
and criteria for management programs are included.
MINING SOURCE MANAGEMENT
Processes, Procedures and Methods to Control Pollution from
Mining Activities, Report No. EPA 430/9-73-011. U.S. EPA.
Wash. D.C. '73. GPO, $3.40.
Report provides general information on controls for surface
and underground mines, and treatment methods. Some cost
information is included.
Various publications of EPA (ORD), Bureau of Mines, SCS, Appalachian
Regional Commission, and others.
-------
- 18 -
CONSTRUCTION SOURCE MANAGEMENT
Comparative Costs of Erosion and Sediment Control, Construction
Activities, Report No. EPA 430/973-016.U.S. EPA. Wash. D.C. '73.
GPO $2.20
Cost information on erosion and sediment control measures
has been assembled in this report, evaluated, and documented
for more then 25 methods in current and widespread use in the
United States.
Control of Erosion and Sediment Deposition from Construction of
Highways and Land Development.U.S. EPA. Wash. D.C. Sept '71.
GPO, $.60
Discusses the causes and effects of excess sediment runoff,
measures for control, costs, and administration.
Methods of Quickly Vegetating Soils of Low Productivity, Construction
Activities, Report No. EPA 440/9-75-008.U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C., July '75.
GPO Stock No. 210-810/11 1-3.
Document prepared for use by planners, engineers, and resource
managers who need to provide for the rapid establishment of a
protective vegetative cover on bare soils on construction sites.
Processes, Procedures, and Methods to Control Pollution Result!ng from
All Construction Activity, Report No. EPA 430/9-73-007.U.S. EPA.
Wash. D.C. '73. GPO, $2.30.
Issued according to requirements of Section 304(e) of P.L.
92-500. Report provides information of a general nature
regarding measures for controlling or preventing erosion cind
sediment runoff, stormwater, and pollutants other than sediments.
HYDROGRAPHIC MODIFICATION MANAGEMENT
The Control of Pollution from Hydrographic Modifications, Report No.
EPA 430/9-73-017.U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C. '73. GPO, $1.95.
This report issued under Section 304(e) provides information
and guidance for use in identification and evaluation of non-
point sources of pollutants, and processes, procedures and
control methods when pollution results from changes in the
movement flow or circulation of any navigable waters or ground
waters.
-------
- 19 -
GROUNDWATER POLLUTION MANAGEMENT
Ground Water Pollution from Subsurface Excavations, Report No. EPA
430/9-73-012.U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C. '73. GPO, $2.25.
Report issued under Section 304(e), provides information on
identification and evaluation, and on control methods. Injection
wells, lagoons, septic systems, land fills, pipe leakage, etc.
are generally covered. Administrators Decisions Statement No. 5
is included.
Identification and Control of Pollution from Salt Water Intrusion.
U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C. '73.NTIS PB 227-229/2.
Report issued under Section 304(e), provides general information
on identification and assessment; and on control methods. Coastal
and inland waters are covered.
Subsurface Pollution Problems in the United States, Report No. T3-00-72-02.
U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C. May '72. GPO Stock No. 514-148/60.
Report provides very general information on types of
subsurface problems experienced in the United States.
Subsurface Water Pollution, A Selected Annotated Bibliography. Part I -
"Subsurface Waste Injection"; Part II - "Saline Water Intrusion";
Part III - "Percolation from Subsurface Sources".U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C.
March '72. NTIS, Part I: PB-211-340; Part II: PB-211-341; Part III:
PB-211-342.
A selective bibliography produced from the computerized data
base of the OWRR Water Resources Scientific Information Center.
Represents published research in water resources as abstracted
and indexed in the semi-monthly journal, Selected Water Resource
Abstracts. Represents a search of a 33,980 - item data base,
covering SWRA from October 1968 through December 1971.
MANAGEMENT FISCAL AND REGULATORY
1971.Suggested State Legislation (1971); 1972 Suggested State Legislation
(1972); 1973 Suggested State Legislation (1973); 1974 Suggested State
Legislation (1974); 1975 Suggested State Legislation (1975).Council of
State Governments. Available from Council of State Governments, 1150
17th Street, N.W. Wash. D.C. 20036. $5.00 for each volume covering one
year.
Includes suggested legislation that would be relevant
for implementing 208 plans.
-------
4
- 20 -
Institional Design for Water Quality Management; A Case Study of the
Wisconsin River Basin, Vol. 1-IX. Irving K. Fox.Resources Center,
University of Wisconsin, Madison Wisconsin, 1971. NTIS PB-199-268.
A case study of the institutional arrangements for
implementing areawide water quality management plans.
Problems and Approaches to Areawide Water Quality Management, Vol. *
I-IV.U.S. EPA.School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana
University, Wash. D.C., '73. NTIS PB-239-808. $25.00
Abstract: See previous reference
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impact, Circular No. 645.
Luna B. Leopold, et. al.U.S. Geological Survey.Wash. D.C.r7T.
Available upon request from U.S. Geological Survey, National Center,
Reston, Virginia 22092.
Suggests an approach to evaluate the probable impact of a
proposed action on the environment by providing a system
for the analysis and numerical weighting of probable impacts. ^
System uses the "generalized matrix" approach. fl
A Review of Environmental Impact Assessment Methodologies, Report No.
EPA 600/5-74-002.U.S. EPA. Wash. D.C. April '74. GPO $.70,
NTIS PB-236-609/AS.
Seventeen methodologies applicable to preparation of
environmental impact statements are reviewed to identify
their strengths, weaknesses, and potential range of use.
Specific criteria are suggested for evaluating the adequacy
of an impact assessment methodology.
An Approach to Evaluated Environmental Social and Economic Factors
in Water Resources Planning. Water Resources Bulletin Vol. 8 No. 4 -,
page 724.Aug. '72.Back issues available at $4.00 per copy from
Dana Rhoads, American Water Resources Association, St. Anthony Falls,
Hydraulic Lab, Mississippi River at 3rd Ave. S.E., Minneapolis, Minn.
55414.
•
Briefly discusses present methods of project evaluation and
then describes an approach adapted from highway planning
literature for evaluating both monetary and non monetary
variables and presenting them to decision makers at all levels.
Social and environmental consequences are analyzed using a
graphical description method. Includes a case example.
-------
- 21 -
Bibliography for Environmental Assessment and Impact Evaluation
of Areawide Water Quality Management.U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C. Nov '75.
Available upon request from U.S. EPA, Planning Assistance and Policy
Branch (WH-554), Wash. D.C. 20460.
A bibliography of references dealing with environmental
assessment and impact evaluation. Emphasis is placed on
those relating to environmental assessment and impact
evaluation of areawide water quality management.
Manual for Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements for Wastewater
Treatment Works, Facilities Plans, and 208 Areawide Waste Treatment~
Management Plans"U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C. '74. Available upon request
from U.S. EPA, Office of Federal Activities (A-104), Wash. D.C. 20460.
Provides the framework for preparing environmental impact
statements (EIS's) when required on wastewater treatment
works, facilities plans, or 208 areawide waste management
plans. Provides certain minimum standards of completeness
and consistency in those EIS's prepared by EPA in the above
categor ies.
Performance Controls for Sensitive Lands; A Practical Guide for
Local Administrators, Report No. EPA-600/5-75-005.U.S. EPA.
Wash. D.C.March '75. NTIS, awaiting number assignment.
Intended as handbook for use by local planning officials
in planning for and regulating use of streams and creeks,
wetlands, woodlands, hillsides, and groundwater and aquifer
recharge areas. Discusses ecology and value of sensitive
areas, and recommends regulatory programs. Includes appendices
on obtaining technical assistance.
The Impact Assessment Scenario. A Planning Tool for Meeting the
Nation's Energy Needs.Report No. M-72-56.Martin V. Jones.
The Mitre Corporation, McLean Virginia. April '72. NTIS PB-211-471.
Seeks to illustrate how the scenario technique, developed by
systems analysts in sixties, can be adapted to help accomplish
comprehensive, systematic planning in the energy field. Concepts
developed apply, however, to water quality management.
Secondary Impacts of Transporation and Wastewater Investments;
Review and Bibliography. Report No. EPA 600/5-75-002.U.S. EPA.
Wash. D.C. Jan '75.OTIS awaiting no. assignment.
A review of over 50 major studies and 300 relevant reports
related to secondary environmental impacts on various forms
of public investments, e.g. land based transportation and
wastewater collection systems.
-------
- 22 -
Secondary Impacts of Transportation and Wastewater Investments;
Research Results, Report No. EPA 600/5-75-013.U.S. EPA. Wash. D.C.
July '75.NTIS, awaiting number assignment.
The second report of a 2 part research study. This report
presents the results of original research on the extent to
which secondary develooment can be attributed to highways
and wastewater treatment and collection, and what conditions
under which causal relations appear to exist.
-------
- 23 -
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ORDERING PUBLICATIONS
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia 22161
The National Technical Information Service has available for sale,
both paper and microfiche copies of many EPA technical reports. Some
reports are, however, available only in microfiche. Information on
availability and prices is given only by mail and can be obtained by
writing to the NTIS and giving them the following information:
1. Title of the report
2. NTIS accession number (usually in the form: PB-000-000).
3. EPA Report No. (If known, usually in the form: EPA 000/0-00-000).
4. Number of copies required.
5. Paper copies or microfiche.
NTIS will respond by mail with a price quote and availability
statement. Publications can then be ordered by mail with payment
enclosed.
U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO)
Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
The Government Printing Office has available for sale, paper
copies of many EPA and other agency publications. Information on the
availability and price of publications can be obtained by calling the
Publications Information/Order Desk at GPO in Washington, D.C. The
desk can be reached at area code 202, 783-3238. The following infor-
mation will be needed.
1. Title of the report.
2. EPA Report No. (usually in the form: EPA OOO/o-OO-OOO).
3. GPO Stock No. (if known).
The Information/Order Desk can then check the availability and
quote the price. If the publication is available a check for the
amount, payable to the Superintendent of Documents, can be mailed
with the order to GPO. Publications will be mailed upon receipt of
the payment. If ordering in the Washington, D.C. area publications
can be picked up in person at GPO. When calling for information and
price ask the clerk to assign a pick-up number. The publications can
then be picked up in person at GPO.
-------
GUIDELINES FOR STATE AND AREAWIDE WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
SUPPLEMENT NO. 1
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
1.1 Introduction
This Supplement No. 1 to the Guidelines for State and Areawide
Water Quality Management Program Development provides additional
guidance to that already contained in regulations and guidelines. Policies
and Procedures for the State Continuing Planning Process\(40 CFR 130)
and Preparation of Water Quality Management Basin Plans (40 CFR 131)
delineate requirements for the utilization of Best Management Practices
(BMP) in water quality management programs. Procedures for implementing
the BMP concept are detailed in the Guidelines for State and Areawide
Water Quality Management Program Development. These regulations
and guidelines call for States to select BMP applicable to the pollution
problems and particular conditions in each State. Where designated 208
areas or agencies exist within a State, the State and the 208 agencies
must work together in establishing appropriate BMP for the designated
area. The purpose of this Supplement No. 1 is to illustrate for various
nonpoint sources alternative management practices that States might
consider in choosing the BMP.
1. 2 Definition of Best Management Practices (BMP)
The term Best Management Practices (BMP) means a practice, or
combination of practices, that is determined by a State (or designated
areawide planning agency) after problem assessment, examination of alternative
practices, and appropriate public participation to be the most effective,
practicable (including technological, economic, and institutional considerations)
means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by
nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals.
1. 3 Concept of BMP
The control of pollutants in the runoff, seepage and percolation
from nonpoint sources can be accomplished through management of the
sources. BMP is intended to be an acceptable basis for State management
of nonpoint sources and to be of assistance for pollution abatement under
NPDES. BMP are the management techniques necessary to protect water
quality. The management techniques (BMP) are to be determined by
State and local government.
Point sources are defined in P. L. 92-500. Nonpoint sources are
not defined. By inference, nonpoint sources are those sources that
result in diffuse runoff (seepage, infiltration and percolation) of pollutants
to the nation's waters.
-------
-2-
Point sources will be managed under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES). Permit issuance is based on Best Practical
Technology (BPT) and/or Best Available Technology (BAT). Permit
issuance and regulatory followup will be carried out by the States or
by EPA where authority for NPDES has not been delegated to the States.
Nonpoint sources will be managed under the authorities of Section 208.
This Section of the FWPCA specifies that the States have the primary
responsibility for managing and controlling nonpoint sources of pollution
under Federal overview and with Federal assistance and cooperation. The
mandatory State control program required by the Act may be based upon
utilization of BMP provided that the State Water Quality Management program
contains adequate measures for the identification of nonpoint source problems,
selection of such practices to correct existing and prevent future nonpoint
source problems, and assure implementation of approved, planned, or
proposed practices; including required regulatory and enforcement systems.
This guidance is primarily intended to apply to the BMP' as they
may be used in the control of nonpoint sources. However, the BMP
may be equally as valuable in reducing the pollutants in point discharge
sources. In essence, the BMP should be considered as a useful tool
for reducing pollutants regardless of whether the source is classified
as a point or nonpoint source for planning, management, and
regulatory purposes.
Because of the variability in sources, topography, climate, soils,
etc., no one BMP will be applicable to all activities or situations.
The BMP must be tailored to the needs of the particular source and
to the physical conditions that will govern its application. It is expected
that State and local expertise, fully familiar with both the sources
and the physical conditions, will be utilized in the final selection of BMP.
1. 4 General Criteria for Choosing BMP for Nonpoint Sources
The definition of BMP states several criteria or tests which
should be applied by the State in choosing Best Management Practices *
(BMP):
- a BMP should manage "pollution generated by
nonpoint sources"
- a BMP should achieve water quality "compatible
with water quality goals"
- a BMP should be "most effective in preventing
or reducing the amount of pollution generated"
- a BMP should be "practicable" m
-------
-3 -
A. A BMP should manage "pollution generated by nonpoint sources''
Water pollution sources can be functionally categorized in accordance
with man's activities. This type of categorization has been used in
Section 208 and 304(e), P. L. 92-500 in connection with nonpoint sources.
It is considered to be applicable to the selection of BMP to prevent or
reduce pollution from these sources. As a minimum, the State should
consider the following activity categories in its establishment of BMP
for nonpoint sources:
1. Agricultural Activities
2. Silvicultural Activities
3. Mining Activities
4. Construction Activities
5. Urban Runoff
6. Hydrologic Modifications
7. Sources Affecting Ground Water
8. Residual Wastes Disposal
The use of this classification of sources should not be interpreted
as placing sources into nonpoint or point categories. As emphasized
earlier, BMP will be useful in preventing or reducing pollutants in both
nonpoint and point sources of water pollution.
The interrelation of the activities outlined above should be considered
in the selection of BMP. It may be advantageous to further categorize
the nonpoint sources based on similar control aspects. Utilization of
sub-categorization could reduce the amount of duplication in the selection
of management practices. Examples of such sub-categorizations are:
(1) by similar physical conditions, e.g., soils, slope, precipitation patterns;
(2) by similar activities, e.g., soil disturbance --construction, strip mining,
land development; (3) by site-specific characteristics, e.g., all activities
in a single area of like conditions; and (4) by pollutant to be controlled,
e.g., sediments, acidity/alkalinity, oxygen demanding materials.
B. A BMP should achieve water quality "compatible with water
quality goals"
Through analysis of existing water quality data and of newly acquired
data where necessary, target levels of abatement should be chosen for each
planning area in the State. The BMP should be selected in terms of
meeting these targets. The pollutants that must be controlled should be
determined. While BMP will normally prevent or reduce several
pollutants, the final selection of BMP should be related to those pollutants
that must be controlled to achieve water quality goals.
-------
-4-
C. A BMP should be "most effective in preventing or reducing
the amount of pollution generated"
The State should select criteria against which the effectiveness
of the BMP can be related. These criteria (Ibs/tons per day/week/
month/year, Ibs/tons per acre/square mile/basin, etc. ) should be
related to the reduction of pollutants and achievement of water quality
goals. The effectiveness of the BMP in reducing pollutants should be
fully evaluated in terms of the selected criteria.
The reduction or elimination of pollutants in the runoff, seepage,
and percolation from nonpoint sources can materially contribute
to the protection of the quality of the Nation's waters. In general,
there are two options for accomplishing the needed reductions and/or
eliminations, namely; (1) Collection and treatment of the pollutants
and, (2) reduction and/or prevention of the formation, runoff, seepage,
and percolation of the pollutants.
Collection and treatment of the runoff, seepage and percolation
of pollutants from nonpoint sources may be necessary in some cases.
However, the collection and treatment of pollutants from nonpoint
sources is generally complex and expensive. Because of this,
collection and treatment is considered to be a final measure to be
utilized where other preventive measures will not reach the necessary
water quality protection goals.
The BMP must be technically capable of preventing or reducing
the runoff, seepage, or percolation of pollutants. First consideration
should be given to those preventive techniques that have been shown
to be effective during their past use. New and innovative techniques
should be fully analyzed as to their technical capability of preventing
or reducing pollutants prior to their consideration for incorporation
into the BMP.
While one practice (measure) may be adequate in some cases,
BMP will generally consist of a combination of practices. The various
alternatives should be fully evaluated. In choosing among the alternatives,
the BMP that most effectively achieves the desired level of water pollution
control should be chosen. If more than one alternative will achieve
the level of effectiveness necessary to reach water quality goals, the
least costly alternative should be chosen.
D. A BMP should be "practicable"
Implementation of the BMP should be feasible from not only the
technical standpoint but also the economic, legal, and institutional
standpoints. The practicality of securing early implementation should
be evaluated in the selection of the BMP. A
-------
-5-
The primary goal of BMP is the protection of water quality.
However, expensive preventive techniques that will result in little
water quality benefits should be avoided. The BMP must be capable
of being implemented within the financial capability of the area, and
of the owners or operators of the various sources. Side benefits as
well as the installation and operational costs should be included in
the evaluation. The final selection of the BMP should take into
consideration both the costs of the preventive techniques and the
economic benefits (water quality or otherwise) to society that will
result from their use.
A number of the preventive techniques that may be incorporated
in the BMP are already in widespread use within various source
categories. These techniques should receive first consideration in the
selection of the BMP. Techniques that will require material operational
changes in the source management should be avoided unless they are
necessary for water quality protection. Insofar as is possible, the
initial implementation of the BMP should be accomplished with the
existing legal and institutional framework of the State. However, if
additional legal authority is needed, steps should be taken at an
early date to secure the needed authority.
Full consideration should be given to the total effect on the
environment in the selection of the BMP for water pollution control.
BMP applied to prevent or reduce water pollution could result in
adverse effects on the other portions of the environment such as the
creation of air pollution or solid waste disposal problems. Adverse
effects on other portions of the environment are not only undesirable
but also will delay the implementation of BMP to control water pollution.
1. 5 Sources of Information on Techniques
In general, a great body of knowledge concerning the management
techniques already exists in the manual and other publications of various
Federal, State and local agencies currently operating programs related
to the nonpoint source field (e.g., the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
and various Soil Conservation Districts manuals and publications; the
manuals and other publications of the U.S. Forest Service). EPA
encourages the use of such techniques once they have been reviewed and
evaluated, and found to have a significant favorable impact on the ecological
quality of the waters of the Nation.
Such information will be supplemented, by EPA and other Federal
agencies, as additional knowledge becomes available.
In those areas where organized bodies of information do not exist
(e.g., urban drainage), EPA is to provide potential users with as much
information as is possible regarding state-of-the-art techniques for control,
-------
-6-
1. 6 Source Category BMP
Information on BMP as applied to a source category is contained in the
BMP papers that follow.
I
-------
DRAFT
12FEB 1976
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
URBAN RUNOFF SOURCES OF WATER POLLUTION
Urban runoff pollution is the result of precipitation washing the
surface of a city—the pollution associated with this runoff being
inevitably a consequence of human activity. Urban runoff contributes
significant amounts of pollution to receiving water. These sources
may be either point or nonpoint, or combinations of the two. In
meeting this problem, this guidance is intended to provide information
regarding the management of pollution from urban runoff and to supplement
information regarding control of urban runoff under NPDES requirements.
Introduction
Pollution from urban runoff occurs when precipitation flushes the
urban environment and carries pollutants to receiving waters. As surfaces
are flushed, the polluted water flows overland toward the collection
systems. The initial collection systems are the land surface, roof tops,
parking lots, and the like, which slope toward secondary collection
systems (roadways, streets, gutters, and drains). It is there that
surface water concentrates as it flows into the sewerage. .These
systems are of two general types: seperate or combined. Separate
storm sewers carry, in addition, untreated municipal and industrial
wastewater. On the other hand, separate storm sewers discharge directly
other hand, usually have flow-splitting devices which, during high flows,
bypass a high percentage of untreated combined sewage directly to the
receiving waters. The remaining smaller fraction receives some treat-
ment before being discharged.
Polluted runoff contains substantial amounts of organic material,
inorganic solids, and coliform bacteria. Other pollutants include
nutrients, pesticides, and heavy metals. Clearly, these pollutants
degrade the receiving water quality. This degradation often results in
decreased dissolved oxygen levels and high turbidities. Coliform bacteria,
indicate the presence of pathogenic bacteria which are pollutants.
Moreover, nutrients, in the form of nitrogen and phosphorus, contribute
to increased eutrophication rates. Although runoff contains pesticides
and heavy metals, their impact on the aquatic environment is as yet
largely unknown, though recent evidence suggests that the presence of
heavy metals decreases the diversity of aquatic biota.
-------
-2-
Problems related to water quality degradation resulting from
unregulated, or poorly regulated runoff are accelerated erosion of
land area and stream banks, sediment deposition in channels, increased
flooding, increasing potential for public health problems and deter-
ioration of aesthetic quality. Indeed, the total pollutant loads of
stormwater, during storm runoff periods, can exceed by many times
that of municipal treatment plants. This condition could very well
preclude meeting water'quality standards—regardless of the degree
of treatment afforded dry weather wastewater flows.
Nature of the Problem
If one word can describe the nature of the urban runoff problem,
that word would be variability. For example, the quantity and
quality of storm overflows can vary with respect to storm character-
istics, antecedent conditions, time, location/ degree of urbanization
or even other factors.
While stormwater runoff problems may be characterized by their
variable nature, the ultimate cause of this pollution may be traced
to the activities of man. Four examples are:
1. Fallout from the Air- Fallout or washout from the air contri-
butes substantial amounts of particulate matter. Winds carry dust and
dirt into and out of an area, but leave large amounts trapped within
the area.
2. Residue from Transportation- Automobiles, trucks, and buses
remain a major source of suspended solids, chemical oxygen demanding
material, and heavy metals, especially lead.
3. Debris from Man's Carelessness- Street litter--an accumulation
of trash—is a major source of organic material.
4. Washoff from Construction- Runoff from urban construction sites,
whether it is from new developments, or redevelopment, contributes sig-
nificant amounts of sediment.
Sediment remains the most common pollutant which results from these
activities. It exists ubiquitously in an urban area. Recent evidence
indicates that heavy metals, nutrients, and some pesticides may adsorb
or cling to sediments.
-------
-3-
Concept
The object of nonpoint source controls is to protect the beneficial
uses intended for receiving waters. While treatment appears an availa-
ble means to achieve this end, its cost remains prohibitive. A less
costly alternative is, then, to address the sources and causes of
pollution. Best Management Practices achieve this goal through the
reduction and prevention of pollution. Such is the principal focus of
the BMP concept.
Management practices may be divided into two groups: those most
useful for existing or developed areas and those more applicable to
new or developing areas. Problems of developed areas occur where
structures and pavements are in place and where drainage is accomplished
primarily through sewering. In the densely populated commercial, and
industrial subareas, management techniques such as improved sanitation
practices and improved maintenance practices are most effective. Such
techniques reduce the amount of pollutants, that can enter the drainage
system.
The "preventive" concept best applies to developing urban areas,
for these are areas where man's encroachment is minimal and drainage is
essentially natural. These areas offer the greatest flexibility of
approach in preventing pollution. What is required, therefore, is to
manage the development in order to maintain a runoff regime as close to
natural as possible. It is in these new areas where proper management
practices can prevent long term problems.
The philosophy of flow attenuation underlies the preventive objective
of the BMP concept. Flow attenuation, as an approach to controlling the
rate of urban runoff, is well documented. It is concerned directly with
runoff as it moves over the surface of the urban area to the initial
collection system. Flow attenuation, in an hydrologic sense, means to
increase the time of concentration and decrease the magnitude of the peak
runoff. Less erosion results because reduced runoff velocity reduces the
erosion force. Furthermore, with this technique large volumes of water
are not allowed to rapidly accumulate at constructions, but flow at
reduced rates over a longer period of time, thus diminishing the possi-
bility of localized flooding. Management practices focus on the sources
of pollutants and their means of conveyance. The improvement to water
quality is a result of reduced loadings to the receiving water.
ment to water quality is a result of reduced loadings to the receiving
water.
-------
-4-
Management Options
Best management practices, within the urban area, are an integrated
approach using source and collection system management. Source manage-
ment is defined here as those measures for reducing or preventing pollution
through good "housekeeping" methods. Examples of "housekeeping" techniques
are:
1) Street cleaning,
2) Sewer flushing,
3) Catch basin cleaning,
4) Improved waste collection,
5) Stock pile covering.
Source management addresses the pollutants where they accumulate, before
they are washed into the receiving water.
Collection system management, as used here, includes all alternatives
pertaining to collection systems which begin from the ground surface and
end with the sewer outfall. Examples include devices such as:
1) Detention basins,
2) Recreation lakes,
3) Debris dams,
4) Playground or parking lot temporary storage,
5) Roof tops, and
6) Use of flow separating devices such as the swirl concentrator,
7) In-systems devices such as
a. Use of existing sewers for storage
b. In-line tunnels
c. Addition of polymers
d. Inflow/infiltration reduction, etc.
8) Groundwater Recharge
Collection system management is concerned with reducing the amount and
rate of runoff and in addition, the number of overflows in combined sewers.
Reuse of stormwater should be considered as a management option in
those areas of the country that are water deficient. Runoff, from sur-
face storage, can be used for such nonpotable uses as fire fighting or
lawn irrigation. Groundwater recharge should be considered where it is
practicable, and the quality of the recharging water would not pollute
the receiving aquifer.
-------
-5-
An integrated approach would include source management to reduce
pollutant loads and collection system management to reduce infiltration,
overflows, and rate of runoff. BMP's should thus stress both source and
collection system management. The management goal is to reduce or prevent
pollution in order to meet water quality objectives at a minimum cost.
Developed areas are subject primarily to housekeeping type techniques
--reduction of loadings being accomplished by actual sweeping after the
fact. Preventive approaches such as increasing percolation into the soil,
and attenuating runoff through surface storage, are possible and should
be considered when redevelopment occurs. The highest degree of flexibility
of approach and probability of sucess is in the developing areas as control
can be built into the project. The opportunity to contain the urban runoff
problem and avoid long term problems,is such that high priority should be
given to planning and implementation of management programs in all areas.
Information Sources
Information on load estimating, management techniques, and tech-
nology assessment for the reduction and prevention of pollution from
urban runoff can be found in the following publications:
1. "Interim Report on Loading Functions for Assessment of Water
Pollution from Nonpoint Sources", EPA-Project #68-01-2293, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 20460, November 1975.
2. "Water Quality Management Planning for Urban Runoff", EPA-440/9-75-004,
U.S., Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460
December 1974.
3. "Practices in Detention of Urban Stormwater Runoff", Herbert
Poertner, Office of Water Resources Research and Technology, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., June 1974, NTIS order
number: PB 234554.
4. "Water Resources Protection Measures in Land Development - A
Handbook", Office of Water Resources Research and Technology, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., April 1974, NTIS order
number: PB 236049.
5. "Urban Stormwater Management and Technology - An Assessment",
EPA-670/2-74-040, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., 20460, December 1974.
-------
DRAFT
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES w* vr»" '37$
TO MINIMIZE WATER POLLUTION DUE
TO RESIDUAL WASTES
The other nonpoint source categories of agriculture, silviculture,
mining, construction, urban runoff, and hydrologic modification often
produce residual wastes through their activities. These discarded
materials must be properly handled to provide for our health and
environmental protection. Our choices in problem solution are
limited. Wastes may be disposed of, recovered for some use, or
reduced at the source of generation.
Millions of tons of residual wastes are disposed annually,
generally by burying or burning and burying; this results in various
degrees of environmental harm to air, land and water. Surface and
ground water damage result when the pollutants from these residual
wastes are conveyed to waters by run-off and infiltration. Using
the residual waste generated by wastewater treatment plants as a base
factor of one, residential and commercial sources generate about 17
times as much waste as generated by wastewater treatment plants, and
industry produces about 35 times the base amount. Agriculture pro-
duces 2 1/2 times the waste produced by industry, and mining produces
7 times that amount.
The following guidance is intended to provide information regarding
the control of pollution from nonpoint sources of residual wastes and
to supplement information regarding control of residual waste pollution
associated with discharges regulated under the requirements of NPDES.
Introduction
Residual wastes are defined as those solid, liquid, or sludge
substances frcm man's activities in the urban, agricultural, industrial,
and mining environment not discharged to water after collection and
necessary treatment. Residual wastes include, but are not limited to:
. Sludges resulting from water and domestic wastewater treatment,
industrial processes, utility plant processes and mining
processes;
. Solids resulting from industrial and agricultural processes
and from nonprocess industrial and commercial activities
(demolition wastes, mine tailings, incinerator residues,
dredge spoil, crop residues, feedlot wastes, and pesticide
containers);
Liquids resulting from industrial side streams and from agricul-
tural product processing.
-------
-2-
Residual wastes must be considered as largely untapped resources
with unrealized potentials for beneficial uses. The minimal use of
residual wastes has primarily resulted from the traditional considera-
tion of such wastes as a problem rather than as potential assets. The ocean
and land have been the final resting places for societies' residues/
because they have been the most economical. This attitude has resulted
in dumps with few siting considerations, a lack of site maintenance
and no emphasis for resource recovery.
As treatment requirements become more stringent with further
implementation of the Federal Water Pollution Control and Clean Air
Acts, residual wastes will greatly increase and will contain a wider
range and greater concentration of pollutants.
Management programs for handling vast quantities of residuals
often fall short of providing adequate protection of water quSlity.
Frequently, procedures intended to abate air and water pollution problems
worsen residual waste problems. Since residual wastes are the end-
product discards of all processes, the management of residual wastes
clearly cannot continue to be considered separately from the overall
management processes and systems that produce the wastes. Just as
the environment -- air, water and land -- must be considered a
continuous whole, and be treated as such, residual waste problems
cannot be successfully segregated into individual components for
separate particularized handling. All considerations must be inte-
grated into a problem-solving approach that will achieve total waste
management, on an areawide basis, with emphasis upon (1) recovering
the resource values contained in any such wastes, and (2) the satis-
factory, sanitary disposal of any element or portion of the residual
wastes not amenable to resources recovery processing or without
economic value for such processing.
Identification of Pollutants
The types of wastes and their composition have changed greatly
over the past three decades, due largely, to changes in lifestyle
and to the great diversity of new products on the market. The wastes
society generates are conveniently classified into hazardous and
nonhazardous. The biological, chemical, and physical actions of
the environment, can, with unacceptable control measures, act on these
residuals to release their hazardous and undesirable constituents to
the environment.
-------
-3-
Water quality problems which can result from the released waste
constituents exceeding the assimilative capacity of the receiving
water include: aesthetic deterioration, dissolved oxygen depletion,
bacteria/virus contamination, suspended solids, dissolved solids,
nutrients, and metals/pesticides/persistent organic toxic compounds.
All of the above problems are directly or indirectly associated with
precipitation, which provides mobility to the waste constituents.
For the most part, nonhazardous residual wastes are a local or
regional problem. The Federal role has been to identify and test
possible solutions, with State and local governments responsible for
implementation. Hazardous residual wastes are a problem of national
scope, with Federal laws controlling the storage and disposal of
waste pesticides and containers, and radioactive wastes. This limited
Federal authority leaves many gaps in the disposal of hazardous wastes.
Concept of Best Management Practices
While the residual waste situation is technologically, economically,
governmentally and socially complex, it can be made to succumb to a
sound, results-oriented program of conceptualization, investigation,
analysis and evaluation, planning and programming and (most importantly)
the exercise of capable leadership and strong resolve to implement
areawide programs and systems.
This approach infers that residual waste problems can best be
corrected by the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP)
which can be expected to result systematically in flow attenuation
of waters, waste stabilization, waste reduction, and resource recovery
and recycling. BMP approaches cannot be established and utilized
individually, but must be integrated into an overall system for the
effective management of residual wastes. Everything works interdepend-
ently. Flow attenuation, while reducing entrained run-off pollutants,
can actually increase infiltration and increase the requirement for
waste stablization. Reducing wastes at the source by preventing the
production of wastes, and, at the disposal end, through the resource
conservation can either eliminate the residues from many manufacturing
processes, before they appear as wastes, or prevent the residuals from
coming into extensive, dis-beneficial contact with the environment.
Management Techniques
Many techniques can be applied to the management of residual wastes,
and the alternatives can be divided into two general categories:
(1) Innovation. This would include, particularly, the development
of source reduction techniques (basically administrative) and systems for
the recovery or recycling of residual wastes (basically technological
and institutional). Reference must be continually made to the total waste
management system, including in-process treatment, or containment pro-
cedures.
-------
-4-
(2) Application of existing techniques. This would involve the
utilization of demonstrated state-of-the-art techniques to remedy
problems; basically, this would be an extension of the present process.
A BMP might be included in either of the above categories.
However, EPA encourages the first: innovation. Over the long term,
the innovative approach will result in accomplishing the greatest
source reduction and the greatest recovery of resources, as well as
the abatement of pollution. Actually, pollution abatement is achieved
almost as a by-product of the innovative process.
However, both approaches are equally amenable to standard admin-
istrative and regulatory practices. The end goal of the approach
should be to provide sufficient reduction in pollutants to enable
the meeting of designated water quality objectives at minimum cost.
Any BMP should consider that*cost considerations are vital and
that treatment alternatives will be used only when lower cost
alternatives fail to provide the required reduction in pollutants.
The greatest degree of freedom in alternative selection will be under
new source conditions where existing decisions and capital investments
will not be overriding factors. These new source condition controls
will permit the greatest short-term accomplishment. The implementation
of BMP's under existing source conditions cannot be accomplished
overnight. The key to successful existing condition control is orderly
transition. It is necessary that any action be phased in over time
in such a way that adverse consequences are minimized or eliminated.
The BMP concept must recognize that capital investments and individual's
jobs must be counted and no change, should be implemented until all
the benefits and costs have been weighed. These criteria must'be
weighed against the urgency of water quality requirements and objectives,
which are insistent that certain ameliorating actions be taken.
Solutions, under a BMP, should be directed toward meeting the
following key needs:
. the need to design a workable, flexible system;
. the need to use, establish, or modify appropriate institutional
arrangements (laws, organizations, processes);
. the need to reduce uncertainties, promote actions to implement;
. the need to establish a sense of urgency, improve schedule;
the need to establish a process of continuous improvement
through research and development in the local area;
-------
-5-
. the need to help people get started on a coordinated basis --
incentivization;
. the need to give adequate attention to all public information
and education programs.
Any BMP must meet certain general and specific criteria. General
criteria are provided in the States Water Quality Management Guidelines.
The specific criteria for a residual waste BMP follow:
Geographic Situation
The geology of our country can vary widely over short distances,
resulting in numerous soil types and hydrologic profiles. Residual
waste disposal and use alternatives must consider these variables
as they determine the mobility of waste components in this under-
ground portion of the environment. Topography of the sites (terrain
slope, type of surface covering and distance between surface hydro-
logical features) affects waste component mobility. The BMP must
examine these variables to prevent waste from being transferred between
environmental structures, ultimately impacting water quality objectives.
Meteorological Conditions
The frequency, intensity, and duration of precipitation within and
outside of the site will affect the surface water infiltration and
material deposition and movement. Precipitation can be in a number of
forms, but rain and snowmelt account for the major volumes. The ambient
temperature can determine the rate of snowmelt and the biological
activity of a site. The absolute humidity as it affects biological
activity and physio-chemical alterations of nonconservative waste
components can make new products that are more or less environmentally
toxic and mobile than the parent material. As meteorological activity
can directly affect water component mobility, the BMP must be compatible
with these environmental influences.
Demographic Conditions
The practicability of certain BMP's can depend upon high densities
of population or industry(ies) being present or absent in a given area.
Frequently, there are critical limits at which resource recovery and
waste reduction become feasible alternatives. Also, as mentioned
earlier, capital investment and individuals' jobs must be weighed when
considering implementation of a given BMP,
Socio-Political Infrastructure
The BMP must address more than the residual wastes, their composition
and their movement^and the technical or technological problems of
their management. Any waste management system that is handling a problem
as pervasive as the management of residual wastes must be inlaid into a
socio-economic and socio-politicel "envelope" that has its own problems
-------
-6-
in dealing with the type of management system that will ultimately
emerge for the management of residual wastes. These problems will
include the development of areawide (regional) resolve to implement/
and a structure and process through which management may be exercised.
Developing these programmatic elements in the face of interlocal/inter-
governmental political and economic rivalries,and the social differences
that may occur within a given region calls for the development of new
patterns for working together, new programs for promoting public under-
standing and reducing public apathy^and the devising of such instruments
of public policy as strong local and State legislation to establish
viable structure and process and reduce marketing uncertainties.
The following specific examples of Alternative strategies are
provided for planning purposes only. They are not recommendations.
Use of any one or more of these specific examples should be based upon
a comprehensive, areawide, interdisciplinary investigation and the
development of specific recommendations from the data.
Source Reduction
The source reduction strategy involves techniques which are
basically legislative and administrative in nature. Examples include:
, Design and use of products that live longer.
. Design and use of products which have less material weight.
. Monetary incentives (beverage container deposits).
Resource Conservation
Source Separation and Centralized Processing. The source separation
strategy involves a system of low technology techniques. Examples include:
. Separation of waste materials in the home.
. Separation of waste materials at commercial establishments.
. Separation of waste materials at industrial establishments.
The centralized processing strategy involves high technology,
capital-intensive systems. Examples include:
. Fuel (solid, gas, liquid) and material (ferrous and nonferrous
metals, glass) recovery plants.
Energy conversion facilities (retrofits, new boilers).
. Material conversion facilities (de-tinning plants, rninimills,
glass products plants, smelters).
• Transportation systems.
-------
-7-
Disposal
The disposal strategy generally involves low-technology systems.
Examples include:
. Construction and demolition waste;
. Lined lagoon and landfill
. Waste stabilization;
. Landfill stockpiling for potential future recovery.
Information Sources
EPA has published numerous reports describing methods for
management practices and preventive techniques for the control of
residual wastes resulting from man's activities. Many of the
practices described above are discussed in some detail in the
following publications. This listing is by no means exhaustive
and the user is encouraged to look further.
. Residual Waste Management Research and Planning Projects,
EPA-WPD 09-75-01, September 1975.
Sludge Processing, Transportation and Disposal/Resource
Recovery: A Planning Perspective; EPA-WPD 1^-75-01,
December 1975.
Interim Report on Loading Functions for Assessment of
Water Pollution From Nonpoint Sources, EPA Project
No. 68-01-2293, November 1975.
Development of Residual Management Strategies EPA 600/1-76-01,
January 1976.
Residual Waste-Best Management Practices Handbook,
EPA-WPD 02-76-01, February 1976.
Additional information regarding institutional structures and
methods of implementation will be provided in later publications.
-------
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
TO MINIMIZE WATER POLLUTION DUE
TO HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATIONS
Introduction
Many development activities within planning areas necessitate
hydrologic modifications as an essential feature. These include
(1) channel modifications; (2) construction of dams to impound stream
flows; (3) other types of construction activities; and (4) resource
recovery operations actually located in streambeds. In addition, there
are many land development activities which, if not properly controlled,
may result in unintended, and often undesirable, hydrologic modifications.
In many instances these activities result in topographic and ground cover
changes which could affect surface runoff rates, volume and direction
adversely. Such effects are often experienced in areas undergoing
rapid urbanization.
Hydrologic modifications may be of local or regional scope, and
are being (or have been) implemented in areas extending throughout
the nation, affecting both intra-and interstate waterways.
-------
-2-
Description of Hydrologic Modifications
Hydrologic modifications resulting in nonpoint source pollution are
activities that either directly or indirectly affect, or have affected,
the natural stream-flow and associated groundwater regime detriment-
ally. Pollutants are consequently added to the surface and ground
waters from the diffuse runoff, or by seepage or percolation. The
levels of many of these pollutants are influenced by climatic events such
as rainfall and the seasonal temperature changes, in addition to the effects
of soil types and topography, and operating practices. Reference to
hydrologic modifications as sources of non-point pollution should not be
mis-construed as eliminating them from consideration as point sources
with respect to certain aspects, which require control under the NPDES
and 404(e) permit programs.
Channel Modifications
Channel modifications are implemented primarily for flood control,
erosion reduction or for drainage purposes. Such structural changes
as dikes, levees, piers, docks, bridges and road fills may require or
result in channel modifications which would not otherwise have occured.
There are seven different types of modifications which are potential
nonpoint sources of pollutants. They are:
1. Clearing and snagging operations to restore the former hydraulic
capacity of a streambed. This is basically a periodic maintenance
operation.
2. Channel excavations which enlarge and reshape an existing
channel, or which provide a new channel in its place.
3. Channel realignment to eliminate meanders that have developed
in the natural streambed.
4. Construction of floodways to relieve the streambed of excessive
flows of storm water. These are normally dry.
5. Construction of retarding basins for the temporary storage of
excess flows of storm water.
6. Construction of debris retention basins to hold back debris
during periods of high water, which might otherwise result
in extensive downstream erosion and pollution.
7. Construction of drainage ditches or deepening existing ditches.
-------
-3-
Impoundments
Dams are constructed to impound surface waters for water supply,
flood control, fish and wildlife, hydropower, navigation, irrigation,
flow diversion, low flow augmentation, and combinations of some or all
of these reasons. They are usually assigned to one of the two following
categories:
1. Run-of-the-river impoundments, which characteristically have
low heads and water detention times limited to a few days.
2. Storage reservoirs, which are usually located on tributaries,
with high heads, and encompassing an extensive area outside the
original channel.
Various Construction Activities
All types of ground-disturbing construction activities result in
modifications to existing drainage flows, and if not given adequate design
consideration, such hydrologic changes may become sources of water
pollution. Construction nonpoint sources of pollution are the subject
of a separate guidance document, and will not be covered here in detail.
When a construction project includes potential nonpoint sources result-
ing from hydrologic modifications, those best management practices
recommended in that document need to be implemented.
Resource Recovery Operations
The resource recovery activity of primary importance is that of
the sand and gravel operation. However, mineral recovery operations
of any kind which will disturb the existing streambed must be considered,
as well as should oil and gas wells (exploratory and production), located
in bodies of water.
Withdrawal and Recharge Activities
Surface and ground water withdrawal and recharge activities may
produce undesirable effects such as reducing waste assimilative capacity,
damage to fisheries, saltwater encroachment, surface subsidance, induced
recharge, and mixing of water in aquifers of differing water quality.
Other Types of Activities
Concurrently prepared best management practices guidelines are
available for activities incorporating hydrologic modifications in
agriculture, silviculture and other categories, in addition to construction.
However, best management practices should be applied for all other
activities involving hydrologic modifications, even if they are not
specifically identified by guidelines.
-------
-4-
Identification of Pollutants
Six general types of nonpoint source pollutants that result from
hydrologic modifications are:
1. Sediment- Sediments are one of the most prevalent non-point
source pollutants, occurring as a result of most types of hydrologic
modification activities to varying degrees. The degree of pollution
from sediments will vary with streamflow, snowmelt and rainfall runoff,
soil types, and bedload characteristics, and will be most intense during the
period when construction activities have removed vegetative cover,
until it can become re-established. Since they are a naturally occuring
phenomenon, present due to erosional processes, they will normally be
evident to some degree even with application of best management practices
to control manmade sources. Where the sediments settle, bottom organisms
can be smothered, and spawning beds can be destroyed. The increased
turbidity during the transport phase will interfere with ligh penetration,
hindering photosynthesis, and is a hazard to boaters, swimmers and
water skiers. Sediments are also carriers of nutrients and pesticides
which may have become adsorbed to their surfaces.
2. Nutrients-Where Hydrologic Modifications located in agriculture- fl
intensive areas result in increase runoff rates and streamflow velocities, ^
the natural level of nutrients may be increased. In urban areas, similar
circumstance will increase nutrient levels as a result of fertilization of
lawns and gardens, but the amount of increase will be lower. Soil
erosion also contributes to the problem by carrying adsorbed nutrients
well beyond the areas that would normally be affected.
3. Pesticides- A similar pollution problem may be experienced with
respect to pesticides as was described for nutrients, unless integrated
pest management has been instituted.
4. Thermal- This form of pollution may result from channel mod-
ifications or impoundment construction. Not only is the temperature *
change that might occur a problem by itself with respect to sensitive
aquatic life, but it can lead to serious changes in the dissolved oxygen
level in the water body. As an example of the type of problem that might
be experienced in channel modification, if the normal tree cover is
removed, and the channel is widened to handle design flood flows, the <
resulting shallow normal flow will be exposed to increased solar radiation,
with attendant temperature increases, and a reduced capacity for dissolved
oxygen. Impoundments that become stratified during the summer and
winter may become oxygen deficient, which can, in turn, cause low
dissolved oxygen problems downstream of the discharge.
-------
-5-
5. Chemicals- Hydrologic modifications such as dredging, with the
attendant necessity to suitably dispose of the spoil, may result in
release of pollutant chemicals from the spoil through leaching
or percolation. The fines re-suspended in the streambed are another
potential source of pollution if adsorbed chemicals are released. Changes
in pH and dissolved oxygen levels that may occur in impoundments may
cause release into solution of certain types of chemicals previously
insoluble. Modifications that lowered the groundwater table sufficiently
in coastal areas could result in saltwater intrusion into a freshwater
aquifer, with attendant salinity degradation.
Chemical stabilization techniques applied for control of fugitive
dust and/or nonpoint source pollution will require coordination.
Techniques selected must be complementary, rather than conflicting, with
the choice of action selected being that which produces the best total end
result, with respect to control of both nonpoint source pollution and
fugitive dust.
6. Microorganisms - Modifications could result in pathogenic
microorganisms entering the water from runoff or percolation and
seepage. Changes in the existing flow regime must consider the effect
on potential sources of such organisms.
Considerations For Best Management Practices Selection
Best Management Practices for hydrologic modifications is the most
practical and effective measure, or combination of measures, which
will prevent or reduce the generation of pollutants, upon implementation,
to a level compatible with water quality goals.
The BMP selected for a specific hydrologic modification will not
necessarily be the same in different areas of the country. Soil types,
topography, climate, existing condition, local zoning and land use
regulations, etc., must be considered in assessing the problem. The
final determination of which BMP alternatives to apply in any specific
case must suit the site conditions, and include appropriate public part-
icipation. BMP must be considered at the earliest stage practicable,
and throughout the problem identification and analysis planning, design
and construction phases.
The principal emphasis should be placed on measures that will
prevent, or minimize nonpoint source pollutants which would be
generated by the specific hydrologic modification. All preventive measures
must be fully integrated into the total management system for every
hydrologic modification. In brief, the changes introduced should
produce conditions similar to those existing in nature which past
experience has proved will effectively control the potential pollutants,
and maintain or improve the water quality, while avoiding changes which
would be detrimental.
-------
-6-
As in other areas of nonpoint source pollution, erosion control
measures are an essential feature of most hydrologic modifications.
Controlling sediment-bearing runoff will reduce the amount of adsorbed
nutrients, pesticides and other chemicals that reach the nation's
waters. Designs for modification must recognize this problem and
provide suitable construction provisions as a part of the project.
(With respect to pesticides, integrated pest management must be
given suitable consideration. ) Subsequent operation and maintenance
activities must continue to apply best management practices to assure
the continued success of the pollution prevention measures.
The potential for thermal pollution problems must be assessed
for some types of hydrologic modifications, and suitable control
measures must be applied. The choice of type of modification may
even be determined by the need to control pollution of this type.,
Prevention and Reduction Measures
The measures which can be applied to hydrologic modifications to
prevent or reduce pollutants from reaching surface or ground waters
may be vegetative, structural or institutional or a combination,, in
addition to those mentioned for agriculture, silviculture, etc., in the
documents developed for pollutants related to those activities., Institut-
ional measures relating to land use should not be overlooked, but will
be more easily applied in non-urbanized locations. The variety of
structural and vegetative control measures will be discussed in detail
in applicable sections of this handbook.
-------
DRAFT
1 3 DFC 1375
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
MINING NONPOINT SOURCES
WATER POLLUTION
Mining activities in the United States have affected approxi-
mately 13 million acres of land according to estimates by the U. S.
Department of the Interior. This acreage includes almost 7 million
acres which have been undercut by mining activities, and more than
3 million acres disturbed by surface mining activities. The remaining
acreage represents land used for containing mining-related mineral
waste accumulations. By the year 2000, the Department of the Interior
estimates that 30 million acres will be affected by mining operations.
While the land area presently affected by mining represents only about
0.5% of the United States, the effects of mining upon water quantity
and quality are spread over large regions.
Introduction
Pollution from mining operations arises because the hydrology of
surface and subsurface waters is altered when the earth's crust is
disturbed to gain access to mineral values held within. The quality
of these waters very often deteriorates, and the quantity is often re-
disturbed as a result of mining operations. Water quality deteriorates
when water supplies are contaminated with soluble products present in
or generated from mining wastes. Water quantity is affected because
natural drainage patterns for surface and subsurface waters are altered.
Any-disturbance of the earth's crust will alter the environment in the
vicinity of the disturbance. The degree to which the environment is
altered depends upon the size and depth of the disturbance, the method
of the disturbance, and the nature of the disturbed materials. The
purpose of disturbing the earth in mining is to extract mineral deposits.
Methods used are determined by the placement of the minerals in the
earth. Similarly, size and depth of the mine are determined by the
distribution of the mineral at the mining site.
The extraction of minerals from the earth's crust can be accomplished
by a variety of techniques. For minerals deep in the earth, mine shafts
are sunk to gain access to the deposit. This method is usually not
used if mineral deposits are available for recovery by surface mining
techniques. Underground mining techniques tend to retrieve most of
the values in the deposit compared to surface mining techniques.
Surface mining creates more visible defacement of the earth's surface,
and results in disturbance of large land curves.
-------
DRAFT
1 8 DEC 1375
The most serious pollutant arising from mining activities is the
mine drainage generated by oxidation of pyritic materials with air in the
presence of water; this drainage is an acidic mixure of iron salts,
other salts and sulfuric acid. Mine drainage arises from both
underground and surface mining sources, and from coal and many
metal mining operations. Coal deposits and so-called hard rock mineral
deposits are commonly associated with pyrite and marcasite, which are
disulfides of iron. Acid mine drainage can find its way into surface
waters, where the acid and sulfate may result in severe deterioration
in stream quality. The acid can react with clays to yield aluminum
concentrations sufficient for fish kills, and with limestone to yield
very hard waters expensive to soften. The acid can also selectively
extract heavy metals present in trace quantities in mineral arid soil
formations, resulting in toxic conditions in lakes and streams.
Mining refuse waste materials left near the mining site after
raw minerals have been cleaned or concentrated is another source of
pollution. Much of this refuse contains pyritic material which can be
oxidized to acidic substances. The resultant acid water may remain
in the pile until a rainstorm, at which time it is flushed into nearby
watercourses. Mine drainage "slugs" during storms are very detrimental
to aquatic life in surface waters.
Mining operations also generate wastes, commonly called spoil, in
the form of disturbed rock and soil. If this spoil is left in piles, erosion
and runoff will carry sediment into streams. This sediment is capable
of destroying life in streams, results in decreased capacity of streams
and reservoirs, and destroys fish and wildlife habitats.
Improperly impounded sediment may be released suddenly as a
mud slide and thus poses a direct threat to life and property.
Mining activities have a pronounced effect on groundwater supplies.
The various operations used to mine the mineral deposits can result
in alteration of groundwater distribution patterns. Aquifers containing
good water can become contaminated because some mining may
disturb bedrock formations, which permit mixing of contaminated water
with good.
Description of Mining Pollution
Water pollution caused by drainage from mining activities occurs
when dissolved, suspended, or other solid mineral wastes and debris
from mining and related operations enter receiving streams or ground
water. Mine drainage includes both water flowing by gravity or pumped
from underground mines, and runoff or seepage from surface mines
and from excavated waste materials. Polluting drainage is often corrosive,
highly mineralized, toxic to aquatic life, and may be laden with chemical
and/or soil sediments.
-------
-3-
I
1 8 DEC 1975
Pollutants may be generated during all phases of the mining cycle
whether the commodity is coal, sand and gravel, uranium, metallic ore
or nonmetallic ore; exploration, development, mine operation, closure,
and reclamation. In many cases, water pollution can continue long
after a mine has ceased operation. Pollution caused by inactive or
abandoned mines ("orphans") presents special problems of abatement.
Mine drainage pollutants include such dissolved and suspended
constituents as acid, alkali, iron, copper, arsenic, cadmium, nickel,
phosphate, sulfate, chloride, radioactive minerals, sediment, and colloidal
contaminants. The acids, alkalies, metals, and other minerals in mine
drainage affect water quality and water use in various ways. To many
the most dramatic effects of mine drainage pollution are the destruction
of fish and other aquatic life and impairment to aesthetic features. Mine
drainage pollution may affect the use of water for municipal, industrial
and agricultural water supply by increasing the costs for water treatment.
Identification of Sources of Pollutants
Various active unit operations within a surface or underground
mining operation produce pollutants that can ultimately enter both
surface and ground waters causing a lowering of water quality. The
discharge of pollutants from certain of these unit operations have been
classified as point sources by EPA, and certain of them have been classified
classified as nonpoint sources. Inactive and abandoned mine sites
can be considered nonpoint sources.
Nonpoint pollution from mining activities are strongly dependent on
precipitation events although there may be a significant response delay
when the ground water is the source of seepage water. The sources may
be intermittent or continuous in nature. The nature and amount of pollutants
are dependent on such factors as soil type, topography, geology, method
of mining, and hydrologic characteristics of the site.
Mining Activities
The basic mining activities that are potential causes of nonpoint
pollution sources are:
Exploration is conducted to locate a seam or other economic
deposit and to obtain quantity/quality data on that deposit. Site access,
-------
\
excavation, and drilling activities can cause surface denudation and
erosion, mineralized ground water discharge, leaching of exposed
mineralogic mater Lais, and chemicals seepage or release.
Construction of the mine and support facilities including roads
can be a major generator of pollutants.
Runoff and seepage of ground or surface waters may contact mineral
matter exposed by the operation and result in mineralized drainage. Slides
of unstable spoil piles or disturbed steep slopes can occur causing further
landscape and stream damages.
Following the mining operation the improper sealing of underground
mines as well as unsucessful revegetation and reclamation of inactive
surface mines,
Pollutant Generation and Their Causes
Land disturbed hy surface mining is a major source of sediment in
mining regions. Studies have shown that erosion and sedimentation rates
on strip-mined land are 500 times as great as those on neighboring land
that has not been stripped. Overburden dumped on the downslope areas
is one of the largest sources of sediment. The post-operative mining
period can be tiie period of most severe erosion. When eroded sediment
is transported to a receiving stream it can smother bottom organisms,
interfere with photosynthesis by reducing light penetration, and contribute
to flooding by filling stream channels.
Acid mine waters result from oxidation of pyrite and other iron-bearing
minerals in deposits of anthracite and bituminous coals. The reaction
of these exposed sulfur-bearing minerals (usually sulfides) with
atmospheric oxygen and water frequently forms a sulfuric acid solution
that reacts with soil and rock materials to leach out other pollutants,
commonly metals. The acidic water can be toxic to aquatic life and corrosive
to manmade structures.
Dissolved minerals contained in mine waters can be present in sufficient
concentrations to be toxic to aquatic life. Heavy metals such as copper,
nickel and zinc may be present in toxic concentrations, as well as chloride,
sulfate, or other troublesome ions. Even though one or more constituents
is not present in toxic amounts considered singly, toxic conditions can
result from synergestic effects among various constituents.
The total mineralization, total dissolved solids content, of a water
can present a salinity problem. It normally occurs when salts contained
in geologic formations are penetrated by mining and the resulting saline
mine runoff waters enter into receiving streams or ground waters.
Aquatic life can be harmed and expensive treatment may be required
for certain uses of that water.
-------
""0 ~*
The control of water pollution from mining activities is achieved
through proper operational management and utilization of preventive
techniques, and by mine water treatment. Control of mining nonpoint
pollution sources is best achieved through prevention or avoidance. The
utilization of preventive and management techniques is the primary thrust
for the control of nonpoint mining pollutants.
There are four premises upon which mining pollution control of
nonpoint sources is based:
1. That any disturbance of the earth for mineral extraction alters
the hydrologic environment to form some amount of water pollutants;
2. That each mine site represents a unique set of chemical/physical
and hydrologic conditions;
3. That effective and efficient environmental protection from mining
impact requires a total mining plan before extraction occurs that covers
management control and preventive measures implementation throughout
the mining cycle. Thus, the plan must cover activities initiated and
implemented during the pre-extraction and extraction phases, and
conclude after extraction has terminated and adequate restoration of the
site has been accomplished;
4. That a combination of several management and engineering techniques
is usually required to effect a complete pollution control plan that prevents
or minimizes pollutants reaching ground or surface waters.
Basis For Best Management Practices Development for Mining Activities
"Best Management Practices" (BMP) means a practice, or combination
of practices, that is determined after problem assessment and examination
of alternative practices, to be the most effective, practicable (including
technological, economic, and institutional considerations) means of preventing
or reducing the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a
level compatible with water quality goals.
Best Management Practices for mining activities are the most practical
and effective measures, or combination of measures, which when applied
to a mine production s1te,will prevent or reduce the generation of pollutants
to a level compatible with water quality goals.
Each identified BMP will differ with the kind of mining, geographic
area and conditions, and the extent and age of the mine. A new mine may
have a different BMP than an older mine in the same locale. BMP
judgements for any specific site will recognize special problems such
as poor soils, unstable slopes, toxic conditions, and unfavorable geologic
structure. Existing regulatory requirements, future land use, and economic
effects will influence BMP developments.
-------
1 8 DEC 1975
There are a wide variety of measures available that will materially
reduce the amount of pollutants generated at a surface or underground
mine site. Selection and blending of the appropriate measures through
the mining cycle can be categorized in terms of four objectives.
1. Prevention of an increase in the mineralization of the ground or
surface waters intercepted by earth disturbance activities:
The quantity and quality of mine water produced can be greatly influenced
by various techniques of surface diversion, subsurface dewatering and
collection, segregration of toxic mineral matter, and proper management
and handling of intercepted water.
2. Minimization of erosion and sediment transport from all
surfaces necessarily removed of cover:
Erosion and sediment transport are problems of surface mining and
surface facilities of underground mining. Measures to mitigate these
phenomena should include grading, compaction, sediment traps and early
revegetation of disturbed areas.
3. Careful residuals management of all mining wastes to prevent
leaching and erosion:
Measures to control the adverse affects of residual materials stored
on the land surface are generally the same as those used in water diversion
and erosion control.
4. Prevention of post-operative pollution via proper mine closure
and/or reclamation measures:
Mine closure and land reclamation are critical processes in the total
mining plan. Closure of underground mines to prevent continued polluting
drainage is more difficult than surface activity but a number of sealing
and diversion techniques are effective in preventing or reducing continuing
problems. A multitude of surface reclamation practices are effective
and available. They can be classed as measures to segregate overburden
and bury toxic materials, return topsoil, control erosion and sedimentation,
moderate topography, stabilize disturbed areas, and permanently revegetate
the area.
Information Sources
EPA has published various reports describing methods for management
practices and preventive techniques for the control of pollutants from
mining activities. The titles of current publications include:
t
-------
-?- 1 8 DEC 1??5
o Processes, Procedures, and Methods to Control Pollution
from Mining Activities, EPA-430/9-73-011, October 1973 .
o Methods for Identifying and Evaluating the Nature and Extent
of Nonpoint Sources of Pollutants, EPA-430/9-73-014,
October 1973-
o Analysis of Pollution Control Costs, EPA-670/2-74-009,
February 1974.
o Environmental Protection in Surface Mining of Coal,
EPA-670/2-74-093, October 1974.
o Inactive and Abandoned Underground Mines, Water Pollution
Prevention and Control, EPA-440/9-75-007, June 1975.
o Criteria for Developing Pollution Abatement Programs
for Inactive and Abandoned Mine Sites, EPA-440/9-75-009,
August 1975.
o Compilation of Federal, State and Local Laws Controlling
Nonpoint Pollutants, EPA-440/9-75-011, September 1975 .
Additional information on features and design of specific measures
is available in the publications and handbooks of other Federal and State
agencies and in various mining industry publications.
EPA is committed to the management, prevention and control of
pollutants from mining sources. Authority exists under sections 208, 209,
303 (e) and 313 of P. L. 92-500 for EPA to initiate a program in conjunction
with the States to manage nonpoint sources, although the the primary
responsibility for nonpoint source management rests with the States.
Establishment and implementation of nonpoint source management programs
will be a part of the areawide planning process in designated 208 areas
as well as a part of the State water quality management responsibilities
in non-designated areas.
Point Sources of Mining Pollutants will be controlled thru the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit Program.
-------
'
Us
Best Management Practices \x)i':'
Silvi cultural Nonpoint Sources of
Water Pollution
Silviculture is the cultivation and harvesting of timber for commercial
purposes. As such, the term includes all activities related co its
purpose from the planting of seeds, through those involved in the maturing
of the crop, its harvest and transportation from the growing area. In
addition to being performed on approximately 500 million acres of
commercial forest land utilized for the continuous produclion of marketable
timber, portions of the overall silvicultural activity take plac-~> on a number
of lands being transferred from a wooded state to another use.
Introduction
This guidance is intended to provide information regarding the control
of pollution from silvicultural nonpoint sources, and to sirpplament
information regarding control of silvicultural associated discharges
regulated under the provisions of the NPDES and 404(e) permit programs.
Silvicultural activities can result in the development of significant
sources of pollutants which may reach surface or ground water, most
often due to a climatic event, although certain construction or hydrographic
modification activities have been recognized under the 404(e) program
as being essentially due to a specific activity of man.
While all silvicultural activities are inter-related, those activities
producing pollutants can be divided into four classes: (1) Access systems
(log roads and other access and transport systems); (2) harvesting; (3)
crop regeneration; and (4) intermediate practices and activities. The
amount of pollutants generated by these activities are strongly dependent
upon the magnitude and characteristics of climatic events, the physical
characteristics of the area (soil type, topography, etc, ), and the
characteristics of the individual operations as they are practiced in a
specific area.
Description of Silvicultural Activities
The four general classes of activities associated with silviculture which
may produce pollutants are:
1. Access Systems- The forest access road system is constructed to
provide access for man, materials and equipment to product]on units
and to serve as routes for transport of harvested logs from the
production unit. Such roads are also used for management and
protection of successive timber crops, and for other access purposes,
including recreation. In terms of construction, these roads range
-------
-2-
from very narrow trails, through unsurfaced roads to higher speed
paved roads. The frequency of use is highly variable ranging from
intensive use to only occasional usage over a number of years.
Nationally, and in certain specifications the forest road system
is the major contributor of sediment to the streams in forested areas.
These sediment loads may originate as a result of road construction
(including stream crossings), direct erosion from the roads, indirect
erosion caused by changes in drainage patterns and systems, and
mass soil movement due to slides and slips.
In addition to the sediment problems, additional pollution problems
may be created due to debris (organic pollution) resulting from construction
and log transport, and from herbicides used to control re-growth in
the right-of-way.
2. Harvesting Systems-- The harvest system includes the process
of felling the tree, preparing it by de-limbing and cutting into desired
lengths, and moving it to a central accessable location for transport
out of the forested area. The four basic harvest systems used in the
United States include seed tree, shelterwood, selection and clear-cutting.
The harvesting of timber results in removal of cover, to some degree,
from the forest floor. Improper choice (or performance) of the harvesting
system may seriously increase the erosion phenomena and consequently,
the potential for sediment pollution. Similarly soil movement may occur
due to increased percolation resulting from removal of the vegetative cover.
After felling, the timber is moved (yarded) to a temporary storage site
or "landing" by one of three basic general methods--tractor (on skid trails).
high lead, or skyline cable. Recently, timber producers have also exper-
imented with ballon and helicopter. Obviously, the magnitude, the disturbance
of earth, and vegetative cover would be reflected on the erosive tendency
with its consequent danger of sediment pollution. Each system, when
properly chosen and operated can minimize environmental problems.
In addition to the sediment pollution, the harvesting system can create
organic pollution problems due to debris and slash washed from the forest
floor or otherwise reaching streams, pollution due to various chemicals
used in the growing and harvesting operation, and thermal pollution due to
removal of the canopy over streams.
3. Crop Regeneration- Regeneration of a harvested area includes both
the natural regenerative process and man's activities in preparing and improving
the site followed by planting or reseeding. The major activities include (a)
debris removal to reduce fire hazard and allow use of equipment for sub-
sequent operations, (b) reduction or removal of brush cover and undesireable
species of trees and, (c) cultivation of the soils.
I
-------
-3-
The use of fire, chemicals and soil disturbing machinery increase
the potential for sediment and other pollution to occur. The time span
for such pollution to occur is variable depending upon the climatic factors
and operational schedule.
4. Intermediate Practices - Other silvicultural processes relating to
thinning of an immature forest, fertilizer application and pesticide treatments
are undertaken during the crop cycle. In general these activities are
infrequent during the crop cycle.
The thinning process involves the removal of selected trees from
an immature forest, in essence a type of harvesting, which would tend to
generate sediment pollution, but at a lesser rate than harvesting.
Chemical application, (fertilizers and pesticides) can result in water
pollution, if improperly carried out or adversely affected by extreme and
unexpected natural event.
Pollutants Originating from Silvicultural Activities
The principle pollutants generated by silvicultural activities are
sediments and debris; chemicals, including nutrients, pesticides, and
fire retardants; and thermal effects. The origin of the pollutants is generally
related to more than one of the activities of the total silvicultural operation.
1. Sediment - - Sediments are the most common pollutants resulting
from silvicultural activities. The sediments principally result from the
erosion of soils, but may also include debris and other organic waste.
Sediments upset balanced ecology within streams by smothering bottom
organisms in water bodies through the formation of bottom blankets,
interfere with the photosynthesis processes by reducing light pentration,
serve as carriers of nutrients and pesticides, inhibit fish reproduction of
many important species, and by altering stream flow and speed.
2. Nutrients-- Nutrients, above the natural levels of an area, generally
result from the application of fertilizers. Soluble nutrients may reach
surface or ground water through runoff, seepage, and percolation. Insoluble
forms may be adsorbed on soil particles and reach surface water through
erosion processes. Nutrients may also reach surface water by direct washoff
of slash, debris, and recently applied fertilizer. Excessive nutrients can
lead to imbalance in the natural life cycles of water bodies and in some cases
can be a health hazard.
3. Pesticides -- Pesticides applied during forest management activites
may be insoluble or soluble. The entrance of pesticides into the surface
or ground waters follows approximately the same pattern as nutrients.
Pesticides may result in acute toxicity problems in the water bodies; or
insidious toxicity problems through the entire food chain from lowest to the
highest forms of life.
-------
-4-
4. Organic Pollutants-- Debris,!, e., slash and other non--
merchanable materials, are the principle organic pollutants that result
from silvicultural activities. The pollutants may reach surface waters
through direct dumping, wash off, and leachate from log storage. The
organic materials place an oxygen demand on the receiving waters
during their decomposition. In addition they may lead to other problems
such as tastes, odors, color, and nutrients.
5. Thermal-- Thermal pollution from silvicultural activities most
often results from the removal of canopy cover from stream bodies
causing water temperature to rise. Temperature is a significant water
quality parameter. It strongly influences dissolved oxygen concentrations
and bacteria populations in streams. The saturated dissolved oxygen
concentrations in streams is inversely related to temperature.
Best Management Practices for Pollution from Silviculture
Best Management Practices for silvicultural sources is the most
practical and effective measure or combination of measures which, when
applied to the forest management unit, will prevent or reduce the
generation of pollutants to a level compatible with water quality goals.
In BMP selection, it should be recognized that the variability in
sources, topography, climate, soils, etc., will in most cases preclude
a single BMP covering all activities or situations. The BMP must be
tailored to the needs of the particular source and physical conditions.
The principle emphasis should be placed on measures that will
prevent or reduce the pollutants in the runoff, seepage, or percolation
from the forest management unit. The preventive measures must be
fully integrated into the total management system for the particular
forest management unit. In essence, the soils, nutrients, pesticides,
and other chemicals must be kept on the land area where they perform
their intended function of assisting tree growth.
Because of the widespread nature of sediment runoff, erosion control
measures must be a principle thrust of the preventive program of each
management unit. Particular attention must be paid to erosion prevention
measures for logging roads and harvesting activities. In addition to primary
control measures, supplemental measures such as debris and sediment
basins should be included where necessary to further reduce or prevent the
entrance of sediments, slash, and debris into water bodies. Where nutrients,
pesticides and other chemicals cause particular problems in surface or
ground waters, further control measures may be necessary. The measures
would principally relate to the application (timing, method, and amount),
utilization, and management of the fertilizers, pesticides, and fire retardant
chemicals. Care must be exercised to insure that thermal problems in
streams are not created by removal of shade canopy. Attention to proper
forest management, engineering and harvesting principles can substantially
reduce all pollution attributable to silviculture.
-------
-5-
Prevention and Reduction Measures
The measures which can be applied to a timber management unit
to prevent or reduce pollutants from reaching surface and/or ground
waters can be classified as two (2) general types. These are (1) non-
structural or management decision measures, and (2) structural or
physical measures.
Management decision measures involve incorporation of water
quality protection considerations into the planning and design of activites
within the timber management unit. It is at this stage that logging access
roads locations and design, harvesting methods, and reforestation
decisions must be made. Structural measures generally involve some
physical method or technique utilized to reduce erosion and prevent
sediment runoff.
Nonstructural measures can be effective methods of reducing pollution
generated by silvicultural activities, e.g. :
A. Pollution emenating from access systeriis may be greatly decreased
by careful location, design, construction and maintance of the roads.
The importance of not utilizing waterways or normally wet areas as
part of the road-access system cannot be over emphasized.
B. Pollution caused by the harvesting operation can be reduced,
under certain soil conditions, by mininizing the disturbance or
compaction of the soil. Careful location and use of skid trails,
particular when the ground is wet, will reduce sediment gen-
eration due to the skidding operation. As in the case of roads,
skid trails should not be located in normally wet areas, nor should
they utilize streams as part of the route. Like road, the trails
should follow the countour of the land rather than provide long steep
grades. Careful handling of debris will prevent accumulation,
which tend to act as dams in streams, and which on breakup, result
in high stream velocities causing channel erosion. Early re veget-
ation of disturbed areas will provide stabilization of the soil, thus
minimizing erosion.
C. Pollution caused by the regeneration activity and intermediate
practices can be minimized by application of proper techniques
under favorable conditions by well trained and supervised
personnel. Additional techniques, such as provisions of buffer
strips along streams may be useful.
-------
-6-
Structural measures are utilized when necessary to further reduce
erosion and prevent sediment runoff. These measures include culverts,
ditches, berms, catch basins, slope stablization, and various road
building techniques.
Information Sources
Reduction measures and preventive techniques are generally
described in "Processes, Procedures, and Methods to Control
Pollution Resulting from Silvicultural Activities" , EPA 420/9-73-010.
More Specific information on logging roads is contained in "Logging
Roads and Protection of Water Quality", EPA 910/9-75-008, Region X,
Environmental Protection Agency. Additional information on features
and design of specific measures and management practices may be
obtained from other Federal agencies, State agencies, and various
forestry associations and publications.
-------
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
CONSTRUCTION NONPOINT SOURCES
WATER POLLUTION
Construction is a broad category covering the alteration and
development of land for a different use including the installation of
structures on the land. The types of projects within the category
generally have two common characteristics, namely; (1) They involve
soil disturbance, resulting in modification of the physical, chemical,
and biological properties,of the land; and (2) They are short-lived in the
sense that the "construction phase" closes when the development and
building activities are completed. Storm waters should be controlled
for the life of the facilities to protect downstream areas.
Introduction
This guidance is intended to provide information regarding the control
of pollution from nonpoint source construction activities, and to supplement
information regarding control of construction associated descharges
under the provisions of NPDES and Section 404(e) of the FWPCA.
Construction activities can result in the development of significant
sources of pollutants which may reach surface or ground waters. About
one million acres of land are being disturbed for construction purposes
each year in the United States. Pollution resulting from these construction
areas can be catastrophic in downstream areas, particularly in small
drainages. This statement is intended to provide guidance in the control
of construction nonpoint sources and for the selection of pollution prevention
or reduction measures that are useful in reaching water quality goals.
Construction nonpoint sources are the land development and building
projects that result in the runoff, seepage or percolation of pollutants to
the surface and ground waters. The runoff of pollutants generated by
the project is strongly dependent on climatic events such as rainfall or
snowmelt. In general, the runoff is intermittent and does not provide
a continuous discharge. The nature of the pollutants depends on the
particular activities underway at the time of the rainfall or snowmelt.
Both the nature and amount of pollutants are also dependent on other
factors such as soil types, topography, project characteristics, and the
number of people and equipment involved.
Description of Construction Activities
There are many types of projects that fall within the construction
category. They generally can be classified into the following sub-
categories:
1. Land Development -- Land development involves the construction
of housing subdivisions, shopping centers, schools, recreation areas,
and related facilities. The areal extent of the land affected is generally
large although a project may be completed in segments. Topographic
slopes are usually gentle with cut and fill sections relatively minor.
-------
-2-
2. Transportation and Communication Networks -- Construction of
transportation and communication facilities involves disturbance of the
land principally in a linear direction. Areas may be quite large but the
width of the disturbed areas is minor compared to their linear extent.
These facilities often are located in areas of high relief where slopes
may be steep and rugged. Climatic differences are extremely diverse
in many of these areas with torrential rains prevalent in higher altitudes.
3. Water Resource Facilities -- Construction of water resource
facilities involves disturbing the ground surface for installation of dams,
aqueducts and their appurtenant structures. Dams may be loca.ted in
relatively steep river valleys or canyons, or in areas of fairly low relief.
Aqueducts have a great linear extent and are generally located along
valley or foothill areas. Climatic differences at these sites may be
extremely variable with intense rainfall occurring in mountain areas.
Dams in higher topographic areas may be underlain by hard, non-
erodible bedrock. Dams and aqueducts in lower areas generally are
located in erodible soils and/or parent materials.
4. Other -- Construction of factories, major office buildings,
airports, power plants, etc. is included in this subcategory. Except for
airports, the areal extent of these facilities is generally limited and
almost all require extensive subsurface excavation. They are generally
located in areas of fairly low relief with relatively low cut and fill slopes
involved.
Identification of Pollutants
Sediment, resulting from erosion of disturbed soils on construction
sites, is one of the principal pollutants. It includes solid mineral and
organic materials which are transported by runoff water, wind, ice, or
the effect of gravity. Chemical pollutants derived from construction
activities originate from inorganic and organic sources and occur in solid
form such as asphalt, boards, fibers, or metals; or in liquid form such
as paints, oils, glues, pesticides, and fertilizers. Biological pollutants
include organisms resulting from soils, animal, or human origins. They
may be bacteria, fungi, or viruses. Excess storm water runoff can be a
severe cause of pollution. It results from changed conditions due to
construction activities.
1. Sediment -- Sediment exerts physical, chemical and biological
effects on the receiving stream and water bodies. Physical damage
resulting from sediment deposition includes: reduction of reservoir
storage capacity, filling harbors and navigation channels, increasing the
frequency of flooding and causing bank erosion, increasing turbidity in
-------
-3-
water and reducing light penetration, increasing the cost of water
treatment, damaging fish life, destroying and covering organisms on
the bottom of streams, reducing the flowing speed and carrying capacity
of streams, and impairing operation of drainage ditches, culverts, and
bridges, altering the shape and direction of stream channels, destroying
water recreational areas, and imparting undesirable taste to water.
2. Chemicals -- The major categories of chemical pollutants
are: petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizers, synthetic materials,
metals, soil additives, construction chemicals, and miscellaneous wastes
from construction.
Some petroleum products impart a persistent odor and taste to water,
impairing its use for drinking water and contact sports. Many oils have
the ability to block the transfer of air from the atmosphere into water,
resulting in the suffocation of aquatic plants, organisms, and fish. Some
petroleum products contain quantities of organo-metallic compounds
(nickel, vanadium, lead, iron, arsenic) and other impurities which can
be toxic to fish and other organisms.
The three most commonly used pesticides at construction sites are
herbicides, insecticides, and rodenticides. The unnecessary or improper
application of these pesticides may result in direct contamination of water,
or indirect pollution by dirt which settles in surface waters, or transport
off soil surfaces into water.
Nitrogen and phosphorous are the major plant nutrients used for the
successful establishment of vegetation on disturbed soils of construction
sites. Heavy use of commercial fertilizers can result in these materials
reaching water bodies to accelerate the eutrophication process.
The construction industry utilizes many different types of synthetic
products. These include structural frames, window panes, wall board,
paints, and many others. Heavy duty construction materials are synthesized
from nondegradable organic materials. They are little affected by biological
or chemical degradation agents, and are usually designed to withstand the
most severe physical conditions.
The concern over metal pollution of water bodies is associated mostly
with the heavy metals (mercury, lead, zinc, silver, cadmium, arsenic,
copper, aluminum, iron, etc. ). Metals are used extensively in construction
activities for structural frames, wiring, ducts, pipes, beams, and many
other uses. Construction vehicles, gasoline, paints, pesticides, fungicides,
and construction chemicals are also potential sources of heavy metals pollutants.
When these latter materials are weathered, decomposed and disintegrated
by various agents, they ultimately form oxides and salts that can affect
aquatic organisms.
-------
-4-
Soil additives are chemicals and materials that are applied to the soil
during construction activities in order to obtain desired soil characteristics.
Often construction activities cover large areas consisting of several
different types of soils. The nature of soils is dependent on the climatic,
topographic and geological conditions. The type of soil additive applied
depends on the objectives of the construction activities. Soils may vary from
one location to another in the amount of water they contain, particle size
distribution (clays, silt, sand and gravel), water infiltration rate, ability
to support heavy structures, and resistance to compaction by construction
equipment. Soil additives are used to control the amount of moisture
absorbed by roadway surfaces, to reduce the degree of shrinking and
expanding of clay soils in order to prevent structural damage of buildings
and air field runways, and to increase the firmness of soils. Several
materials are used to obtain desired soil properties. Commonly used
materials include lime, fly ash, asphalt, phosphoric acid, salt, and
calcium chloride. The soil additives carried in runoff from construction
sites alter the quality of receiving waters. However, little work has been
conducted to show the net environmental effects of these soil additives.
Many other chemicals are used in construction for purposes such as:
pasting boards together, sealing cracks, surface treatment, solvents for
oils and paints, and dyeing and cleaning. The amounts of chemicals
leaving construction sites as pollutants have not been established,, Poor
construction activities that are liable to contaminate water resources include
the following practices: dumping of excess chemicals and wash water
into storm water sewers; indiscriminate discharging of undiluted or
unneutralized chemicals; disregard for proper handling procedures
resulting in major or minor spills at the construction site; and leaking
storage containers and construction equipment.
Miscellaneous pollutants include concrete wash from concrete mixers,
acid and alkaline solutions from exposed soil or rock units high in acid,
and alkaline -forming natural elements. Cuts through coal beds have
resulted in the seepage of mine acids into streams. High lime areas
often increase the alkalinity of receiving waters.
3. Biological Materials — Biological pollutants from construction
include soil organisms and organisms of human and animal origin. They
include bacteria, fungi, and viruses. The majority of biological pollutants
are found in the topsoil layer where they can feed on dead plants, animals,
birds and other organisms.
The biological pollutants resulting from construction activity indicate
that the greatest pollution potential are of animal and human origin. They
are more prevalent on construction sites where improper sanitary
conditions exist.
-------
-5-
Basis For Best Management-Practices Development
Best Management Practices for construction are the most practical
and effective measure or combination of measures which, when applk d
to the land development or building project, will prevent or reduce the
runoff of pollutants to a level compatible with water quality goals.
Since the amount of pollutant runoff from construction sites depends
on numerous variables such as the type of construction involved, the
quantity and intensity of rainfall, the soil characteristics, etc. , it is
recognized that those particular types of control measures that will pre-
vent this runoff must be installed on the site. The proper mix of control
measures must be established on site-specific basis. Whether they are
properly installed and maintained must be checked by on-site inspection
as there is no way that effluent monitoring can accomplish this.
Best Management Practices for construction activities consist, of
measures which will prevent the movement of pollutants from construction
sites. While sediment is the principal pollutant resulting from earth-
disturbing construction activities, chemicals, hydrocarbons, solid
wastes, and other materials must also be considered.
Description of Preventive and Reduction Measures
There are essentially three basic measures for controlling the runoff
of sediment from construction sites. They include: d) preventing erosion
of exposed soil surfaces, (2) restricting the transport of eroded particles,
and (3) trapping sediments being transported. Measures developed for
controlling movement of sediment and other materials by water generally
are also useful for controlling that generated by wind action.
Preventing erosion of exposed soil surfaces is achieved by protecting
these surfaces with such coverings as mulch; sheets of plastic, fiberglass
roving, burlap, rock blankets, or jute netting; temporary growths of fast-
growing grasses; or sod blankets. Mulch consists of hay, straw, wood
chips, bark, or any other suitable protective material. Sheets of plastic
and netting materials are generally used on steep slopes where vegetation
is difficult to establish or erosion rapid. Seeding of temporary fast-
growing grasses is most desirable when final grading cannot be done until
a later date and climatic conditions permit. Sod often is used as a covering
in critical areas susceptible to erosion.
Limiting the areal extent of soils disturbed at any one time is a usable
mechanism for minimizing erosion. It can be achieved by planning and
carrying out the job so that as work progresses existing vegetation is removed
only on that area of soil surface essential to immediate work activities.
Construction activities are completed on each exposed area and revegetation
accomplished as rapidly as feasible.
-------
-6-
Solid wastes should be collected at the site and removed for
disposal in authorized disposal areas. Frequent garbage removal
is essential, Any useful materials can be salvaged or recycled.
Often, borrow pits, or excavations can be filled with inert solid
wastes.
Runoff of construction chemicals resulting from paints, cleaning
solvents, concrete curing compounds, and petroleum products, can
be largely restricted by sediment control measures as many of these
materials are carried by sediment particles. Good "housekeeping"
procedures such as proper disposal of empty containers, prompt
cleanup of accidental spills, and neutralization or deactivation of
excess chemicals and wash waters should minimize runoff of the
remaining materials.
Information Sou roes
Nonpoint source pollution control practices discussed above in
summary form are described in more detail in the following
publications ?
"Processes, Procedures, and Methods to Control Pollution
Resulting From All Construction Activity" EPA 430/9-73-007,
October 1973
"Comparative Costs of Erosion and Sediment Control,
Construction Activities" EPA 430/9-73-016, July 1973
"Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
Implementation" EPA R2-72-015, August 1972
Additional data regarding design of structures, specifications for
vegetative practices, instructions for installation of surface pro-
tective coverings, and other useful measures are available in
numerous published standards and specifications, manuals, hand-
books, or guides. They are generally prepared and issued in local
areas by States, Counties, or Conservation Districts, with the
assistance of the U. S. Soil Conservation Service.
4
-------
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT SOURCES
WATER POLLUTION
Agricultural nonpoint sources are a broad category covering all crop
and animal production activities. Crop production includes both
irrigated and non-irrigated production, such as row crops, close
grown crops, orchards and vineyards, and fallow land temporarily
out of production. Animal production includes such systems as pasture
and rangeland grazing, semiconfined feeding and grazing, and con-
centrated animal feeding operations.
Introduction
This guidance is intended to provide information regarding the
control of pollution from a agricultural nonpoint sources, and to
supplement information regarding the control of agricultural discharges
regulated under the requirements of NPDES. Agricultural production
activities provides, on a national scale, significant sources of pollutants
which reach both surface and ground waters. These may be either
point sources or nonpoint sources, or combinations of the two.
Description of Agricultural Activities
Agricultural nonpoint sources are the crop and animal production
systems that result in diffuse runoff, seepage, or percolation of
pollutants to the surface and ground waters. There are a number of
different activities within each of the systems that may cause water
pollution. The runoff, seepage or percolation of pollutants generated
by the activities are strongly dependent on climatic events such as rain-
fall and snowmelt. In general, they are intermittent and do not represent
a continuous discharge. The nature of the pollutants depends on the
particular activities underway at the time of the climatic events. Both
the nature and amount of pollutants are also dependent on other factors
such as soil types, topography, crop and animal types, and crop and
animal production methods.
Crop Production
There are five general categories of activities associated with crop
production which can produce the potential for nonpoint source pollution:
1. The disturbance of the soil by tillage or compaction by
machinery.
2. The alteration of natural vegetative patterns by substituting
crop plants for natural vegetation or leaving the soil without vegetative
cover.
-------
-2-
3. The increase in available nutrients, over the quantity available
through natural cycles, by the application of fertilizers.
4. The introduction of chemical compounds not found in significant
quantities under natural conditions such as by the application of
pesticides.
5, The application of surface or ground waters for the purpose of
irrigating crops.
Animal Production
There are three general categories of activities associated with
animal production which can produce the potential for nonpoint source
pollution:
1. Concentration of animals (and their wastes) in a particular
location for an extended period of time such as at feeding areas.
2. Overgrazing of range and pasture lands that removes vegetative
cover from the land.
3. Concentration of animals instreams or along stream banks
in such numbers as to cause disturbance of the stream bottoms or banks,
or result in direct deposit of manure into streams.
Identification of Pollutants
Six general types of nonpoint source pollutants that may result from
activities associated with agricultural production systems are:
1. Sediment: Sediments, by volume, are the most serious
pollutants resulting from agricultural production. They include prin-
cipally mineral fragments resulting from the erosion of soils but may
also include crop debris and animal wastes. Sediments can smother
organisms in water bodies by forming bottom blankets, interfere with
the photosynthetic processes by reducing light penetration, and act as
carriers of nutrients and pesticides. Deposits also may fill reservoirs
and hinder navigation.
2. Nutrients: Nutrients, above the natural background levels of an
area may result from fertilizer applications and animal wastes. Soluble
nutrients may reach surface and ground water through runoff, seepage,
and percolation. Ions may be adsorbed on soil particles and reach surface
water through sedimentation processes. Nutrients may also reach surface
water by direct washoff of animal wastes and recently applied fertilizer.
-------
-3-
Excessive nutrients can lead to imbalance in the natural nutrient cycles
and cause eutrophication. In some cases, excessive nutrients can be
a health hazard.
3. Pesticides: Pesticides which are applied in the agricultural
production unit may be insoluble or soluble. The entrance of
pesticides into the surface or ground waters follows approximately
the same patterns as nutrients. Pesticides may cause acute
toxicity problems in the water bodies or insidious toxicity problems
through the entire food chain.
4. Organic Materials: Animal wastes and crop debris are the
principal organic pollutants that result from agricultural production.
They may reach surface waters through direct washoff,
or, in their soluble form, reach both surface and ground waters
through runoff, seepage or percolation. The organic materials place
an oxygen demand on the receiving waters during their decomposition.
In addition, they may lead to other problems such as tastes, odors,
color, and nutrient enrichment.
5. Salinity (TDS): The necessity of leaching to remove, or prevent
the damaging accumulation of salts in the root zone of plants has the
potential of inducing subsequent quality problems in both surface and
ground waters if agricultural waters are not properly managed. Percol-
ating water may reach ground water through further deep percolation,
or move laterally into surface water bodies. The problem becomes
more pronounced when the applied irrigation water initially contains
dissolved solids which will become more concentrated as the
plants remove water for their use. Severity of pollution depends not
only on the nature of the receiving waters but also on the nature of
the uses of the receiving waters.
6. Microorganisms: Any potential disease-causing micro-
organisms (pathogens) in water are a matter of concern to the health
and safety of the water users. Animal wastes are the principal source
of pathogenic microorganisms resulting from agricultural production.
Pathogens reach the water bodies through the same routings as
the animal wastes.
Basis For Best Management Practices Development
Best Management Practices for agricultural production are the
most practical and effective measure or combination of measures, which
when applied to the agricultural management unit, will prevent or reduce
the generation of pollutants to a level compatible with water quality goals.
They often enhance the productivity of the soil as well as control pollution.
-------
Because of the variability in production methods, crops and
animals, soil types, topography, climate, etc., the BMP for any specific
agricultural management unit or area will vary. The selection of Best
Management Practices for a particular agricultural management unit or
area is a complex process. Any measure or combination of measures
applied to an agricultural management unit or area which will achieve
water quality goals is a potential BMP. However, the measures are • *
generally the type that are incorporated into a soil and water con-
servation plan as developed by a landowner or land user, with the
assistance of a conservation district and/or the Soil Conservation Service,
Extension Service, Forest Service, and others. f
The principal emphasis should be placed on measures that will
prevent or control the runoff, seepage or percolation of pollutants
from crop or animal production management units. Preventive measures
must be fully integrated into the total production management
system of the agricultural management units. In essence, the soils,
nutrients and pesticides should be kept on the land where they perform
their intended agricultural function.
Because of the widespread nature of sediment runoff, erosion control
measures should be a principal means of controlling pollution from M
each agricultural management unit. Control of erosion not only will prevent •
soils from leaving the land, but also will materially reduce the nutrients ^
and pesticides that reach the nation's waters adsorbed to soil particles.
Where necessary, to further prevent or reduce the entrance of sediments
into water bodies, supplemental measures such as debris and sediment
retention basins should be utilized.
In cases where excess amounts of nutrients, pesticides and animal wastes
cause particular problems in surface or ground waters, additional control
measures may be necessary. These measures might relate, for example,
to the application (timing and amount) of fertilizers and pesticides, the
prevention of the concentration of animals, and the collection and adequate
disposal of the animal wastes. Salinity buildup resulting from irrigation
must be analyzed in terms of the particular problem with subsequent develop- t
ment of appropriate measures.
Description of Prevention and Reduction Measures
Measures which can be applied to an agricultural management unit j
to prevent or reduce pollutants from reaching surface or ground waters
can be generally classified into four categories. They are: (1) structural
measures, (2) conservation cropping systems and animal management
systems, (3) quantitative and qualitative management of cropping system
inputs, (4) vegetative measures.
i
-------
-5-
Structural measures generally involve some physical method designed
to reduce erosion or prevent sediment runoff. They include such things
as barriers applied at the source such as terraces, conveyance systems
to enhance non-erodable flows such as waterways and drop structures,
and catchment systems for the final clarification such as debris basins.
Off-stream watering points, controlled access watering points at water
bodies, diversions around feeding areas, and manure trapping basins
are considered to be structural measures.
Cropping systems and animal management systems involve the spacial
and sequential arrangement of crop plant and animal pop-
ulations. The arrangement of crops on a field such as strip cropping,
crop rotation such as sod-forming grass rotation systems, and tillage
methods such as minimum tillage can significantly reduce pollutant trans-
port. Control of animal populations so as to prevent overgrazing or the
concentration of animals in particular locations "can reduce erosion,
sediment runoff, and the runoff of concentrated animal wastes.
Inputs into cropping systems which are not efficiently utilized can
become potential pollutants. Nutrient and pesticide applications should
be matched to the immediate needs of the agricultural production
systems. The timing of the applications should take into consideration
external hydrologic forces. The efficient use of irrigation water can
materially reduce the salinity buildup problems associated with runoff,
seepage, and percolation of the water not utilized by the plants.
Vegetative covering on bare, or exposed soils is any crop planted
solely to prevent, or control erosion and sediment runoff. It can be
used during the winter months, between regular crops during the growing
season, or where denuded areas have resulted from overgrazing or
some other activity. The vegetative cover protects the bare ground
from the erosive energy of falling rain and flowing runoff water and filters
out sediment actually being transported in the runoff water leaving the site.
Information Sources
The prevention and reduction measures outlined in the foregoing are
generally described in "Methods and Practices for Controlling Water
Pollution from Agricultural Nonpoint Sources, " EPA-430/9-73-015. Oct 1973.
Data on control of dust is presented in "investigation 01 Fugitive Dust,
Volume 1: Sources, Emissions, and Control" EPA-450/3-74-036a
June, 1974, Specific information on the application of the measures for
agricultural nonpoint sources and water quality management is contained in
"Control of Water Pollution from. Cropland, Volume I " USD A, ARS
and EPA, ORD. November 1975. "Interim Report on Loading Functions
For Assessment of Water Pollution from Nonpoint Sources" EPA; ORD.
-------
-6-
November, 1975 provides data for assessing the problem. Information
on specific aspects of agricultural nonpoint source pollutants and their
control can be found in research reports of EPA, USDA, and other Federal
agencies, State and local agencies, colleges and universities, and agricultural
trade associations and in grazing and range management documents by these
groups.
Design information on various conservation methods can be
obtained from Soil Conservation Service handbooks. Specific infor-
mation on particular locations can be obtained from SCS Field Offices,
the Extension Service, soil and water conservation district offices, and
other informed agencies and groups.
ft US GOVERNMFHT POINTING nmrt 1Q7»_260-380/17
------- |